The Instigator
saphirescar
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
TheWorldForMorals
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

War movies should be banned/regulated in America.

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 2 votes the winner is...
TheWorldForMorals
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,976 times Debate No: 68873
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

saphirescar

Pro

I feel that this is an important issue to address with the release of films such as The Interview and, more recently, American Sniper.

American Sniper is a film about Iraqi War veteran Chris Kyle, detailing his experiences as the 'Deadliest Marksman in US History. Many are complaining that the film not only is an example of modern propaganda, but that it further sparks a sense of Islamophobia in Americans, and frankly, I think they're right.

The first minutes of the movie consists of the main character shooting a little muslim child and then having a flashback to him hunting deer with his dad when he was younger. What does this imply? That the murder of a child was somehow sweet? Whether it was intentional or not, some say that it implies that people of colour are nothing more than animals and need to be slaughtered.

It's no secret that America has some sense of Islamophobia. Ever since 9/11, there have been people who chose to blame the event on the entire Muslim population rather than the outliers who were truly responsible. And by glorifying a man who was known for killing Muslims, what kind of message is this sending?

Chris Kyle should not be glorified to any extent. It is so common of Americans to classify anyone who served in the military as a hero. And, while it takes a lot of courage to fight in a war, it does not automatically make someone a good person, let alone a hero. Kyle writes in his autobiography, the basis of the movie, "Savage, despicable evil. That"s what we were fighting in Iraq ... I hate the damn savages. I couldn"t give a flying f**k about the Iraqis." (1)

With the political outcry over former cancellation of "The Interview", there's no doubt the same thing would happen if this movie was pulled. "Freedom of speech!" they would cry. Well, yes, freedom of speech is important, but to what extent? In cases like this, freedom of speech is trumped. Lives are at risk because of this movie. Since its release, many have sent out tweets with hate speech and death threats towards Muslims and Arab-Americans. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

In fact, some of the threats were apparently so severe that the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) sent out a letter to director Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper, the film's star. (7)

Our rights are meant to protect us more than anything, and right now, it's clear that's not what they're doing. They're being abused, and instilling fear into many Muslims and Arab-Americans. "I'm scared to even enter a movie theater where American Sniper is playing," says one Muslim girl. "Many of my hijabi friends went to see the movie ... one of them got attacked last night while exiting the theater ... And security didn't do anything." (8)

It's clear that some cannot handle watching a war movie without causing a violent backlash, and it's simply safer to ban them, or at least check them for accuracy. Yes, it would be unfair to those who are responsible enough to watch it, but it's just like in preschool: if one person can't have something, neither can anyone else.

(1) http://electronicintifada.net...
(2) https://twitter.com...
(3) https://twitter.com...
(4) http://electronicintifada.net...
(5) https://pbs.twimg.com...
(6) https://pbs.twimg.com...
(7) http://www.usatoday.com...
(8) https://31.media.tumblr.com...
TheWorldForMorals

Con

I accept this debate.

Although it is not stated in the pro argument, I will assume the implied; that the burden of proof rests on the pro debater. Therefore, I will post my rebuttal and the pro debater will continue to uphold burden of proof.

Your first paragraph begins to talk about the film 'American Sniper'. Although I have not seen this film, I have heard about the wave of controversy it has created. You describe the opening scene as a grotesque start to a movie. This seems to be an adaptation of an event that happened in real life. In Chris Kyle's autobiography, he reports his first kill with a sniper. He killed a women who was approaching a group of marines with a grenade in her hand. However, the story was botched! CNN (no surprise here) reported the incident with the woman holding a baby, instead of a bomb(1). You then state that the movie creates a sense of "Islamophobia." There is no reason to be scared of Islamic people. However, does that mean that we should just accept what some are doing in order to be politically correct? You then say that the movie implies that the sniper finds it "sweet" to kill colored people. Does that mean that if he shot a white person he would have remorse? You seem to be pulling the "race card" like most other leftist debaters.

It's no secret that Islamic people are responsible for the terror attacks we see on the news. 9/11 is just one of the many incidents of terror attacks caused by Muslims. About 37% of Muslims identify as at least partially radical(2). This hardly seems like an outlier! Yes, the sniper is known for killing Muslims. However, if the war was instigated by a group of radical Christians or Jews, the sniper would have been killing Christians or Jews. If the movie was about killing Christian terrorists I highly doubt anyone would make such a big deal about it.

You then state that not all war heroes should be glorified. Which they should not. The quote from the book is a very harsh way of staing that the Iraqis are not good. Which is an invalid generalization, of course. Chris Kule was not fighting the whole of Iraq, however. He was fighting the radical Islamist groups. If those people aren't evil than I don't know what is.

Freedom of speech is a crucial right to have in any democracy. Events when freedom of speech has been breached are occurring more and more often (Donald Sterling, Louis Lerner, etc.) If we continue to impude further upon our basic right, I believe it will become null and void altogether! So no! In no circumstances should freedom of speech be trumped.

The movie is telling a story based on a man's life. It should not be censored or taken down because of people who don't agree with what you are doing.

You're right! Our rights our abused, but for the complete opposite reasons! Two instances I listed earlier in my argument show to circumstances where our rights are being abused for the opposite reason (see Donald Sterling and Louis Lerner)
Your point makes little sense to me about how Muslims should live in fear because of the movie. Take one of many World War 2 movies. Germans are killed in said movies. Therefore, since I am of German descent, I should fear for my life! Same logic.

"We should ban war movies" Are you being serious? We can't take ANY movies off the shelves because of a "violent backlash"
This brings up countless problems. "What is considered a 'war movie?'" "What war movies should be banned?" These and countless more questions will be raised and debated if the government was to implement your "solution"
We have rights for a reason. They cannot and will not be broken.

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
saphirescar

Pro

It does not mean that we should accept what some are doing, but the problem is that many either do not understand or reflect that it is only some people, not all, that do these things. And, seeing as Kyle was white himself, it is likely he would've felt more remorse. It's much easier to feel remorse for pain to your own race than that of another. (1) The only reason I and many others are pulling the "race card" is because it's a real problem.

Yes, and doesn't that seem at least a little strange? We hardly ever see terror attacks committed by white people on the news, or if we do they're hardly ever called such outright. But really, only about 6% of terror attacks in the US are committed by Muslims, according to a list of all US terror attacks from 2002 to 2005, released by the FBI and then formatted into a chart by Princeton University's "Loon Watch" . (2) (3) (4)

If the movie were about killing Christian terrorists, of course there wouldn't have been a fuss about it. It probably wouldn't have existed in the first place. Christians have privilege in this country, not to mention that it's likely most of the post-movie tweets about killing Muslims came from white, Christian, republican men. (I'm sure you know the type.) With Christians making up approximately 77-78% of the population, there's no way anyone would put out a movie that demonized Christians in the way that American Sniper demonized Muslims. It just wouldn't sell. (5) (6)

Yes, the movie tells the story of his life, but it is censored in the first place, in the form of propaganda, something the US is known for.

With your mention of Donald Sterling, yes, I agree that that was an abuse of rights. What people say in private is their business, but if it is made public, people should be prepared to deal with the backlash. That's the way the world works. You just have to deal with the consequences of your actions. And your analogy about Germans is in no way the same as Muslims and the AS movie. First of all, Germans are mainly white, and therefore subject to white privileges. Also, people now understand that all Germans are not responsible for the actions of some Germans in WW2. That's the main problem, that people don't make that connection when it comes to Muslims. And the fact that no Germans were harmed after the release of WW2 movies, but Muslims received death threats after the release of American Sniper, should be proof enough that it is not the same logic.

Ok, I admit my original wording was a bit harsh. Perhaps they shouldn't be outright banned, but yes, regulated in some way. Perhaps being released at a later time, like in the case of WW2 movies, by which point people generally understand that is wrong to blame an entire group for the actions of some. There's a much bigger underlying issue here, the issue of prejudice towards Muslims.

(1) http://www.cnn.com...
(2) http://www.fbi.gov...
(3) http://edition.cnn.com...
(4) http://www.loonwatch.com...
(5) http://religions.pewforum.org...
(6) http://www.census.gov...
TheWorldForMorals

Con

Sources for first rebuttal:
(1)http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Your first point makes little sense to me. Yes, the amount of radical Muslims are a minority, however it's far from an outlier(as stated earlier). You then pull up a bit of obscure data from the leader of all botched polls and statistics: CNN itself! How am I to believe a bit of information from a news corporation that, undoubtably, has a liberal bias?

The key part of the terror attacks in the US bit is the words "in the US." The only reason that that number is not higher, is due to the minuscule amount of Muslims living in the US compared to the rest of the world. 70% of terrorist murders in 2013 were caused by terrorist Muslims(1). Doesn't really seem like a peace-loving religion after all. The Quran contains 109 verses of violence(2). Allah urges His followers to join the slaughter of infidels(2). Even condemning those who don't kill to Hell(2).

Your next paragraph goes on about "white privileges." How do whites have any more privileges than any other race?" You then make a un-supported statement about how "LIKELY Christian Republican men made the tweets. How do you know that? And does that mean that only republican men did this? Snarky comment avoided, this is a poorly put-together paragraph.

"The US is known for propaganda." How is this film propaganda? It tells the story of the life of a soldier. It doesn't tell people to go and kill Muslims. It simply recounts the sniper's military career.

I see you did not mention Louis Lerner, and how the emails "disappeared." They both were obvious encroachments on our rights. You then make this argument: Germans=White. White=White Privileges. Therefore since Germans have white privileges, they're not killed. I'm sorry but you're basing your argument on these mysterious "white privileges."

Yes people are blaming the entitreity of the Muslim population for the actions of a minority. However, Islam is not the harmless, peace-loving religion that you paint them out to be.

(1)http://m.cnsnews.com...
(2)http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
Debate Round No. 2
saphirescar

Pro

Wikipedia as a source? Really?

I've never known CNN to be a biased source, seeing as many people view it, but I've listed a different source at the bottom. (1)

Yes, I admit I have nothing that can support my assumption of the people who made those tweets. The only thing that let me to those conclusions were my own experiences. I lived in a rural/southern area for a very long time, one that was predominantly made up of white Republicans/conservatives. It's just a behaviour that I would expect from that demographic, something that I'm used to.

White privileges are not something I made up just for this argument, they are a very real thing. In almost all cases, the group of majority -- in this case, white people -- have privileges in society. It is often hard to notice privileges unless they are pointed out to you -- things that are just taken for granted, in a sense -- but that does not null their existence. (2)

Well, the movie is at least partially falsified. It does not tell the whole truth, in order to make Kyle seem like a better person. As Lulzy pointed out in the comments, there were fictional scenes added into the movie to make him seem "sympathetic", when in reality, in his book he says he regrets not killing more Iraqis. So, it does not simply recount his career.

I did not mention Lerner because I did not look into it. This debate is not about them. And once again, white privileges are not "mysterious".

Okay, no religion is perfect. And as with many other religions, the holy book of Islam is about context and interpretation more than anything. When looked into a bit more deeply at the verses you mentioned, they're more about self defense than anything else. (3)

(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) http://www.nymbp.org...
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(4) https://medium.com... (more on propaganda of the movie)
TheWorldForMorals

Con

Although Wikipedia is not known for being a reliable source, it had been give a bit of a bad rap. Also, it was the source that best articulated my point.

We often assume too much. You cannot exclude and accuse a great number of people based on personal experience. If you continue down this path you can run into trouble. For example anecdotals or other literal fallacies.

You then make a paragraph about white privileges. How are whites better off than the rest? The paragraph does not list any proof or explanation of these privileges. You have nothing to back up your point. White privileges seem to me like a non-existent liberal tactic of making white people feel guilty.

Do you think an Iraqi jihadist would hesitate to kill Kyle if given the chance? Kyle was fighting radical Muslims in Iraq. Trying to make radical Muslims look innocent is like trying to push a rope up a pole.

Lerner and Sterling were infringements upon the first amendment, which you seem to be advocating. They are relevant because cases like these are continually coming up, and will only continue with increased censorship.

I don't think it's very hard to interpret the verses that I have listed.A devout Muslim is supposed to follow the teachings of the Quran. Therefore, a devout Muslim should participate in the killing of infidels. Islam is far from perfect, it would seem.

I submit my closing argument saying to the voters, that my opponent is advocating censorship. If we were to adopt my opponent's plan, what else could it lead to?
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by flash-man69 2 years ago
flash-man69
war movies are regulated. American sniper is rated r so only mature audiences can watch. Also White people are always first to blame when it comes to being racist which is the most racist thing ever. like Ferguson riots. you only hear the white cop shooting a black guy and a city decides it can wreck havoc.
and is america really the only place that honors there war heroes. also everyone uses propaganda. you are the most ignorant person ever to believe that the us is the sole racist country ever because were white. America is the most diverse place in the world full of every person around the world. if you want us to go back to being racist old country we are trying to put behind us then why dont we deport all muslimsor put in internment camps like we did to japs during ww2. the govt cant tell people how to act when they seea particular movie. when i went to go see american sniper what i interpreted from it was a hollywood movie version of a truely remarkable sniper. people who came out thinking they should beat up muslims are psychos who probly wouldve done it whether they saw the movie or not. and i did not check your sources but were all the people white that beat up those muslims or is it you racism speaking. also war movies are a part of history. if we did not have them we would be reading up on them. if i read a book and decide i now hate muslims should they also regulate books.
Posted by saphirescar 2 years ago
saphirescar
@a_drumming_dog I suppose so. It's not preferable by any means but I'd rather have censorship if it prevented murder.
Posted by miketheman1200 2 years ago
miketheman1200
My comment got deleted. How un-ironic
Posted by a_drumming_dog 2 years ago
a_drumming_dog
Advocating censorship? Really?
Posted by Idiosyncratic 2 years ago
Idiosyncratic
You are correct. I have not read the book. And that is why I bothered commenting in the first place. This debate is about the movie, not the book or what really happened. If it were about the book, then I would have stayed out of it because I have not read the book. I commented on what is actually is in the movie because it is relative to the conversation. Whether or not Kyle was a good man is not being debated here. It is whether or not movies like American Sniper should be banned / regulated. Also, whether or not this movie is propaganda. All of my statements are relative to the issue being discussed.
Posted by Lulzy 2 years ago
Lulzy
Upon reading more of what Idiosyncratic said, it seems that he watched the movie, but did NOT read the book that was written by Kyle himself.

He himself in the book calls Iraqi's savages and in an interview says that "I don't regret killing them. I only regret that I couldn't save more soldiers."

Any scene in the movie that was meant to portray Kyle as sympathetic to the Iraqi's was made for the film and nothing else.
Posted by Lulzy 2 years ago
Lulzy
@Idiosyncratic: While I have seen American Sniper and know this scene exists, it didn't actually happen. This scene in the movie is not at all mentioned in Chris Kyle's autobiography. That scene was only added into the movie to make Chris seem sympathetic.

Also, The Butcher was not in the autobiography. Mustafa WAS in the book. But he was only mentioned for one sentence. And the 2,100 meter shot was also real. But not on Mustafa. It was on some dude with an RPG.
Posted by Dragonblade 2 years ago
Dragonblade
When you think about war movies, particularly movies about the war on terror in the Middle East, you have to think about the facct that these movies are simply showing a depiction of the truth. And, the truth is that not all Muslims are terrorists. These movies show the populations of Muslims that are terrorists. So, us viewers have no reason to hate the Muslims in our country and go after them.

PS: There's no reason to be so discriminatory towards your readers. I'm a fricking white Christian male, and I'm not going after Muslims. I have Muslim friends at school, for Christ's sake.
Posted by Idiosyncratic 2 years ago
Idiosyncratic
In regard to saphirescar's comment about some suggesting Chris having a flashback to killing a deer implies colored persons are animals to be put down, Kyle risks his life attempting to save an Iraqi child being tortured by a man with a power drill, so i'm not sure what misguided and sick thought process the aforementioned "some" had going on in their twisted brains.
Posted by Idiosyncratic 2 years ago
Idiosyncratic
Also, to say this movie is "propaganda" is a bit general. Propaganda for what? That War is hell and that you have to go through hell before you become a soldier and you are trapped in hell even after you leave the battlefield? I think that is a mature message because it is true and people need to see war for what it is: the consequences for actions made by few and paid for by many.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chucknorris5799 2 years ago
Chucknorris5799
saphirescarTheWorldForMoralsTied
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 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: Movies fall under the first amendment. Freedom of speech
Vote Placed by Prodigy0789 2 years ago
Prodigy0789
saphirescarTheWorldForMoralsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: You two mainly debated whether Chris Kyle was a good man or not. It was easy to get off topic, but once Pro went off the deep end, I was tilting towards Con.