The Instigator
lillunchboxbandit
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

YouTube has been Corrupted

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,329 times Debate No: 9179
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (8)

 

lillunchboxbandit

Pro

Just watch this video. If my opponent think that this isn't true, then I'll post real argument.
Lexicaholic

Con

My opponent is Pro and instigator of this debate. Therefore he bears the burden of proof that Youtube has been corrupted. Corruption is defined as "a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct."[1] Therefore, Youtube will have been corrupted if it has deviated from its original or its pure/correct intent. Yotube has a mission statement, as every company does, outlining the goals of its business. "Ideally, a mission statement guides the actions of the organization, spells out its overall goal, provides a sense of direction, and guides decision making for all levels of management."[2] A company, while a legal person, is not a real person with a sense of morality to degrade. Rather, it has only its mission statement, its duty to its stakeholders, and its duty to abide by proper regulations to consider. Therefore, Youtube will have been corrupted only if it can be shown that Youtube is presently pursuing goals contrary to the stated aims of its mission statement.

Pro has not provided a copy of the Youtube mission statement, without which his claim is unwarranted. My research has revealed a possible mission statement for Youtube, although the source, I must admit, is highly questionable and the answers it provides likely speculative. I shall, of course, continue to endeavor throughout this debate to determine Youtube's true mission statement.

Presently the statement that I am working under is:

"[O]ur mission is to provide fast and easy video access and the ability to share videos frequently."[3]

Note that the business statement does not say that the mission of Youtube is to provide everyone the opportunity to be heard/viewed. Rather, Youtube's mission statement is to provide "fast and easy video *access*" along with the "ability to share videos frequently." Neither of these goals are thwarted by Youtube's expanding commercialism. In fact, "fast and easy video access" is improved by commercialism, as it provides users the opportunity to more readily access professional productions with the option to browse less professional productions. That option ensures that users are still able to share videos and, barring any limitations on publication, nothing in Youtube's current policies will impact the ability of users to share videos frequently. It is simply less likely that someone will accidentally check out what you are sharing when they wanted to check out something Walt Disney Co. was sharing.

Therefore, barring an alternative mission statement for Youtube, my opponent's claim that Youtube has been corrupted is unwarranted.

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://wiki.answers.com...
Debate Round No. 1
lillunchboxbandit

Pro

lillunchboxbandit forfeited this round.
Lexicaholic

Con

Forfeit noted, arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
lillunchboxbandit

Pro

I'm sorry. I was busy with a lot of things. Anyways, more and more videos are being removed because of content. One of the biggest issues is music. If you use music and don't credit it, then the audio is usually disabled. Sometimes, even if credited, the audio is still removed. Also, they're putting more movies and tv shows on YouTube. Now there are only four tabs. Home, Videos, Channels, and Shows. Sure people are putting clips from their favorite shows, but YouTube doesn't need to start putting shows there too. That's what Hulu is for, which ironically is the source of most of these clips. In addition, the ratings are no longer visible, so nobody can tell what videos are crap, and which ones are worth watching. And to make matters worse, smaller channels are practically invisible now that the only videos in the videos tab are videos about popular subjects like the teen choice awards, or mega channels like Fred, Nigahiga, and SMPfilms. Most of their videos aren't as good as the ones that made them popular. I mean, is it really necessary to make a channel just for your cat? Another unreasonable change to YouTube is the overused censorship. Some videos that have nothing offensive in them have been removed for no reason. This is why YouTube has been corrupted.
Lexicaholic

Con

The resolution is that "Youtube has been corrupted." My opponent has proposed no standard other than mine from which it can be corrupted. Therefore, Youtube will only be corrupted if my opponent's response support a charge that Youtube no longer "provide[s] fast and easy video access and the ability to share videos frequently." His response does not, therefore Youtube has not been corrupted.

"Anyways, more and more videos are being removed because of content."

It is irrelevant if some videos are removed if Youtube continues to provide fast and easy video access and the ability to share videos frequently. Youtube is doing this. http://youtube-global.blogspot.com... Now more vidoes can be shared. Perhaps they won't stay up very long, but they will be shared.

"One of the biggest issues is music. If you use music and don't credit it, then the audio is usually disabled. Sometimes, even if credited, the audio is still removed."

That is because they are unlicensed reproductions of others' original works of authorship that have been fixed in a tangible medium of expression. http://www.copyright.gov... Youtube can not allow violators of US copyright laws to continue to display their unlicensed reproductions on its website or it could face a contributory infringement lawsuit. Every living organism has the right to lawfully see to its own survival. Surely a company is not corrupted when it does the same thing.

"Also, they're putting more movies and tv shows on YouTube."
My opponent is arguing that Youtube is getting worse because it is adding more content. More content would seem to necessarily equal more videos being shared. Therefore, Youtube is acting according to its mission statement to see to it that more videos can be shared frequently.

" YouTube doesn't need to start putting shows there too. That's what Hulu is for, which ironically is the source of most of these clips."

My opponent is now arguing for Youtube's corruption, as the elimination of content would reduce the number of videos shared.

"In addition, the ratings are no longer visible, so nobody can tell what videos are crap, and which ones are worth watching."

As a result, more people will check out videos they otherwise would not have seen, improving the likely transmission (sharing) of videos.

"smaller channels are practically invisible ... the only videos in the videos tab are videos about popular subjects."

Is there really something wrong with giving people what they want? If you know what you want, look for it. Youtube is getting so big you should be able to find just about anything. For example, I just entered Drunken Cookie Monster. Well, whatta ya know ... (See Vid)

" is it really necessary to make a channel just for your cat? Another unreasonable change to YouTube is the overused censorship."

Some people like cats. And not just any cat. Your cat, in particular. So yes, they do need that channel. ;)

"Some videos that have nothing offensive in them have been removed for no reason. This is why YouTube has been corrupted."

Offensive content could also result in legal troubles, as per the copyright issue. Additionally, removing videos does not prevent their sharing, as they are shared the moment they are uploaded. "Share -To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The moment you upload a video to the Youtube site, you share it with the Youtube administrators ... who may or may not believe it is in the best interest of Youtube to share it with others. Either way, Youtube has not been corrupted. It has just been commercialized.

My opponent has therefore failed to warrant his claim that Youtube has been corrupted. Ergo, I strongly urge a Con vote.

Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Sorry lil ... I always ask for friends to review debates that don't seem to be appropriately reviewed. I also always ask for RFDs because part of the reason for this site is to learn and acquire understanding of other people's thought processes and the conclusions they arrive at ... the only time I don't leave RFDs, for example, is when I am voting on my own debate, because that would seem awfully arrogant to me. :)
Posted by lillunchboxbandit 7 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
Seriously, guys! Could you stop rubbing it in? I keep losing my debates because of my stupid keyboard and popular opinion!
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Thanks for the RFD Volkov!
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
I actually agree with PRO, or at least PRO's video, but it is clear he didn't bother to research, let alone come up with, a viable argument. All points go to CON, due to the forfeit round and lack of paragraphs and proper spelling on PRO's account.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
lol *whew* good to know XD
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Lol... I meant Con, obviously.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
This doesn't need an RFD. Pro on all accounts.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Thanks for the RFDs guys!
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
COND- CON (forfeit)
S/G- TIED (no major infringements, and the enter key doesn't count, MTG)
ARG- CON (long shot. PRO did not meet BOP and his arguments were utterly crushed)
SRC-CON (used more and better sources)
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
RFD- everything Con. Self-explanatory.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
lillunchboxbanditLexicaholicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by lillunchboxbandit 7 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
lillunchboxbanditLexicaholicTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
lillunchboxbanditLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
lillunchboxbanditLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
lillunchboxbanditLexicaholicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
lillunchboxbanditLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
lillunchboxbanditLexicaholicTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
lillunchboxbanditLexicaholicTied
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