The Instigator
Confucius01
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dexterbeagle
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

This house believes that the media should not televise real extreme violence

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 4 votes the winner is...
dexterbeagle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 59383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Confucius01

Pro

Real extreme violence should not be televised on the media as currently in this era of technology many of us are easily influenced by it and tend to follow every single step taken as shown in the media. Those who are caught are normally the teenagers who are still fragile in their early stages of life and haven't seen much of the real world. Since they have a lack of experience in such events they seem to believe everything portrayed by the media and have an urge to follow it.

Secondly, as what Albert Einstein has said "Out of clutter, find simplicity". It is a necessity for civilized humans to live in harmony. By educating violence through the media we are just going to break that harmony. Once the media has managed to influence the people it is really scary to think what may happen next as what we call human civilization, will be replaced by hungry for violence animals who are one day going to going execute what they have seen and basically it will add to the problems faced by the country already. For example educating humans to stop encouraging violence.
dexterbeagle

Con

I accept the debate. This should be interesting given the time limit.
Debate Round No. 1
Confucius01

Pro

Confucius01 forfeited this round.
dexterbeagle

Con

Quick note on how CON will argue: Second round will present preliminary ideas and rebuttal to Pro"s statement in the first round. The third round Con will prepare major rebuttals and additional arguments because given these three rounds will take place in the next two hours, Con will not have sufficient time to challenge round two"s arguments until round three.

First, a quick distillation of PRO"s argument: the media is ubiquitous, dominates are lives, therefore "should not televise real extreme violence." If the time were set for standard debates, Con would attempt to refute the psychological underpinnings of this argument because there is little scientific evidence to link violence as portrayed on television and larger moral decline or social decline in general. Given there is 60 minutes to make an argument, Con will appeal through basic reasoning and straightforward logic.
Let us go back to the earlier known remnants of literature: 2,000 BC and the "media" or poem in question is the epic of Gilgamesh. The first section begins Gilgamesh, king of Uruk and is a gladiator, pure testosterone, restless. Gilgamesh keeps the men awake at all hours on alert to erect a wall, while he ravages their wives bodies. This is one of the first pieces of world literature and compared to the violence on television it makes a compilation of the wildest battles on Game of Thrones look rather tame. Someone in the Mesopotamian region found this epic tale worth the arduous tasks of molding clay-like substance, waiting for it to harden in sun, and then etching with some rudimentary tool the epic story of Gilgamesh. Con simply wants to point out that violence has been integral to human civilization, often bringing out the worst, but often to achieve something noble and good. This is merely context worth taking into account.
However, let Con transition to two other points: first, the impossibility of controlling extreme violence or extreme sexual acts given the global nature of communications. Television is broadcast on the internet, through every kind of legal and illegal streaming service, and so on. Even in Iran or China, someone or some service will come along almost instantaneously invent a way to circumvent any forms of censorship. North Korea, the extreme example, but most successful regime concerning restricting access to the outside world still fails. People in South Korea and dissident groups smuggle through various mean media into the country. Given the basic realities that govern modern communications it is unrealistic"outside some kind of The Walking Dead situation that any government or agency in the world has the resources to manage redacting or preventing access to extreme violence.
So far, Con has provided context and background for violence and the way that television operates in a global society. But Con wants to rebut a point made in Pro"s opening remarks, specifically the first paragraph. Pro makes an emotional appeal and says that many people are influenced by the media"fragile individuals who may be influenced to replicate scenes or acts of violence they watch on television. As an adult male who rents an apartment and has no intention of becoming a parent or even finding the idea remotely appealing, I speak for myself as well as many others who simply do not care about protecting children and adolescence from violence on television. Is that not the very dilemma parents face every day; protecting children and vulnerable individuals from the vice and danger that permeates everyday reality? If these basic functions are neglected, then the problem is not on television or any visual alternative reality but somewhere else.
Finally, Pro mentions the media should not show extreme violence but false to provide specific example from television. In the next round, for clarity please provide two or three specific example of extreme violence on television because right now your argument is simply a subjective understanding they may correspond little to my understanding or other people"s understanding of extreme violence.
While this is a generalization about television viewers in the United States, it is fair to state several million"teenagers, adults, middle-aged adults, and elderly adults enjoy watching extreme forms of violence on television. Take for instance arguable the best and most watched television series on the planet: Game of Thrones. Millions love it, I personally love it, and I cannot think of any justification for denying HBO from distributing this series on television, whether on an actual television or IPad or IPhone. Moreover, the best television series of the last decade and today are violent dramas: The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad"or to be concise, every television program on HBO and SHOWTIME every made.

Last quick point: Pro forfeited the second round; however I hope the third round will provide the opportunity for a real debate. Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Confucius01

Pro

Confucius01 forfeited this round.
dexterbeagle

Con

I anticipate PRO will forfeit the third round but in the event this does not hold true, let me move to some other points, based on what appears to be common sense among 95% to 99% of the US population. PRO mentions in his opening remarks that individuals are susceptible to what they watch on television. While this is likely some nominal influence in an emotional sense, it does have the potency to cause people to act. [Sorry for those that do not watch Mad Men]. When I watch Don Draper woo women with the kind of ease I can only woo my dog with, I don"t think to myself: if I can just cultivate a Don Draper-esque just like I"ve watched on television, there is a good chance I will bag and tag the likes of Don"s first wife, Betty or his second wife, Megan. No that"s ridiculous, television is simply fiction. As Don Draper explained advertising and television work like this:
"You are the product. You feeling something. That"s what sells. Not them. Not sex."

Some people are probably asking "But the motion was about extreme violence. Why are you talking about Don Draper?" Well to be honest, I have yet to figure out what Pro means by extreme violence so I am trying to come up with comparable example of sex on television, which many people also find distasteful and want to restrict in some form.

But let me address the violence on television. [Boardwalk Empire reference"CON is trying to find common ground everyone on DOD who likes good television and wants to vote]. Viewers who are up-to-date with the series will no doubt recall one of the most violent and also potent scenes from last season that being Richard Harrow (gentlemen with prosthetic facial) who goes on a killing spree to eliminate some unsavory criminals from Atlantic City. Individuals it should be said are better off dead on this fictional, period-drama, whose last season will air on September 7th for those interested. The clip of the scene mentioned above can be found on YouTube. Type: Boardwalk Empire, Richard Harrow, killing spree or a combination of those and you will be able to access the clip. For those who plan to vote"who have a stomach for extreme violence"I encourage you to watch the clip. For anyone those of you who did, let me ask: "are you motivated to reenact that kind of violence in your everyday life?" First, let me suggest anyone who immediately said yes, you might want to refrain from stating that position publicly. Seriously, though, no one thinks or believes or is influenced to commit such gruesome violence in real life, those that are seduced into television fantasies are often have mental illnesses, and others I suppose other related psychological issues that are better left to someone with medical training to address.
My point, and likely my last point if Pro forfeits is that while everyone is influenced by the emotion of great television, even television with extreme violence, an infinitesimal percentage of the population believes that reality and fictional are one and the same. Therefore, in conclusion, there is not a substantial collective interest in restricting television violence, and Pro has not provided an argument to challenge this position. Please vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Confucius01dexterbeagleTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
Confucius01dexterbeagleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Confucius01dexterbeagleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
Confucius01dexterbeagleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF