The Instigator
kayteecurt
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
quarterexchange
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Youtube should be monitored

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: 5/3/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,308 times Debate No: 16280
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

kayteecurt

Pro

Youtube is an IMMENSELY bad influence on children who automatically look up random topics on the internet. All videos going into Youtube should be monitored, and if necessary, eliminated or censored to people with bypass passwords, such as friends or subscribers to the person posting the video. this can take away the stress of remembering an inappropriate video or a video of a topic the child should not be accustomed to. Youtube has caused the ruin of many great minds and souls, and should not continue without proper monitoring.
quarterexchange

Con

"Youtube is an IMMENSELY bad influence on children who automatically look up random topics on the internet"

Prove it.

"All videos going into Youtube should be monitored, and if necessary, eliminated or censored to people with bypass passwords, such as friends or subscribers to the person posting the video"

Why? Your only reason to do this is based on a mere assertion you made claiming Youtube is a bad influence on children and that children are likely to look up life scarring videos.

"Youtube has caused the ruin of many great minds and souls"

Prove it. Prove that a child who was destined to become the scientist who cured cancer, or the first human to land on Mars, or the inventor of the air powered car, or any other great accomplishment had their souls and lives ruined by innappropriate videos on youtube.

I'd also like to know what my opponent defines as "innappropriate."



Debate Round No. 1
kayteecurt

Pro

Well, once you get bad data in your head, it STAYS! I also can not prove anything, but take a look around! Is there a SINGLE misguided teen that has not looked up an inappropriate video on Youtube. And if they keep looking stuff up, they stay led only by videos posted by random people unknown to them. I think you have given some excellent points, but I have a couple good ones as well. what about a system where only the friends of the poster can see the eliminated videos? that could work out quite well. Inappropriate: Any topic your parents have to introduce to you before you know about it. There are many.
quarterexchange

Con


"I also can not prove anything"

That's too bad, you need proof especially when you are the Instigator and Pro where you accept the Burden of Proof to prove Youtube somehow negatively influences children.

"Is there a SINGLE misguided teen that has not looked up an inappropriate video on Youtube"

Probably not but there probably aren't any teachers, pilots, scientists, military officers, doctors, architects, etc and various other individuals who hold prestigious positions in society that havn't looked up videos on youtube as well that fit your defintion of "inappropriate".


"Inappropriate: Any topic your parents have to introduce to you before you know about it. There are many."

So explain how a child of around 9 or 10 years of age will be negatively affected if he or she sees an exposed female breast. Or hears adults using curse words. The Burden of Proof to prove that viewing innappropriate material somehow scars a young child so much to the point that they, from then on out, become delinquents all throughout their lives, is all on you.

So far your entire position and your arguments are based on mere assertion.

You also said, "Youtube has caused the ruin of many great minds and souls"

You have yet to prove this statement to be a fact or carry any amount of weight.

"what about a system where only the friends of the poster can see the eliminated videos?"

What about parents taking responsibility for their own children and locking certain websites rather than have a successful corporation that provides a good service most people enjoy eliminate videos that many people wish to see and ruin it for everyone else?

Let's say for the sake of argument, viewing exposed sexual organs, hearing profanity, and witnessing acts of violence, somehow turned a kid that was really going to accomplish great things in his life, into a troubled teen and eventually a troubled adult, which you still have yet to prove or even back up.

Why does the burden and responsibility of keeping a child from being exposed to that kind of material rest on Youtube and the billions around the world who enjoy Youtube and not the adults raising the child?

Why do videos millions enjoy have to be banned for the sake of children when the people raising those children can just as easily put a password on their computer or watch what the child does on the computer?

That's like saying we should ban everything that can potentially harm children because what you are saying is that the responsibility of a child's well being, no longer rests on the parent.

Guns can harm children, but instead of having parents keep guns locked in safes, we should ban guns.

Cars can harm children, but instead of parents keeping their car keys from children or keep their children from playing in streets, we should ban cars.

Medical drugs can harm children, but instead of parents keeping medical drugs locked up in a bathroom or kitchen cabinet, medical drugs should be banned

And now you claim that the Youtube videos can harm children, but rather than have parents lock their computer, lock youtube, or supervise their children when they go online, Youtube videos should be banned.

Debate Round No. 2
kayteecurt

Pro

I like your points. Since this is my first debate, I'll try to return to as many topics as I can. If children hear cursing on the Internet, they will start to experiment themselves. I do admit that my "friends only" plan would be an utter flop, but if absolutely necessary, clean versions of some videos can be made if requested. Or we could just get people from posting bad videos altogether by creating TV announcements and pamphlets. It really should be easier, but Youtube should only be used when necessary, not just to look up random topics. What I'm trying to say is that the main problem is little kids looking up things without purpose at all. If you are looking for something in particular, chances are you'll find it. If you just look something random up, you might find a video that is inappropriate. If anything, small children should go on Zuitube, one of the few websites that is kid-friendly and monitored.
quarterexchange

Con

"If anything, small children should go on Zuitube, one of the few websites that is kid-friendly and monitored."

I agree, but Youtube should not have to deny millions of users good videos because of lack of parental control.

"If children hear cursing on the Internet, they will start to experiment themselves."

This is irrelevant, you have yet to explain how the burden and responsibilty of keeping a child from being exposed to innappropriate videos rests on Youtube and their users rather than the parents.

Children can also accidently look of pornography online, should pornography then be banned?

I don't mind having "clean" versions of "innappropriate videos being posted for children but the innappropriate version should stay.

Again, a parent can easily lock the computer, block certain websites, and supervise their child when they go online. The responsibility of a child's well being rests on the parent, not everyone else.

I shouldn't have to watch "clean" versions of videos that eliminate cursing because of the "innappropriate" versions being banned.

I shouldn't have to watch Clark Gable at the end of Gone With the Wind say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a DARN", because parents nowadays are too irrisponsible or are too lazy to lock Youtube from children.

You also failed to address the fact that many things can harm children.

Kids can take dangerous medical drugs and get seriously ill or sick, but according to your logic, it'd be more reasonable to ban anti-biotics, insulin, aspirin, and other various other life saving drugs because the burden of responsibilty rests on the Pharmacuetical corporations rather than the parents.

Children can accidently drive cars and crash and injure themselves or carelessly chase a ball into the street and get hit by a truck, but according to your logic we should ban cars rather than have parents supervise their kids.

You not addressed this large fallacy in your logic and you have not given any good reasons as to why the responsiblity to keep children from being exposed to something potentially dangerous rests on Youtube rather than the parents.

The quality of Youtube should not have to be compromised for the sake of lazy and irresponsible parenting. Because if it should be then there is no reason why cars, medicine, kitchen knives, plastic tubs, should remain legal and unregulated since all of them are able to hurt kids a hell of a lot more than any youtube video.
Debate Round No. 3
kayteecurt

Pro

You're absolutely right. Parents should supervise their children more closely instead of the kids getting into trouble on their own. You have excellent reasons. But watching a lot on Youtube myself, I have come across some things I couldn't have explained if I tried. But what if parents come to a situation where the children are not supervised. At sleepovers, being home alone, and even sitting by yourself in your room can prove to be an excellent example. A question for you: How can you supervise older children when they are too independent to rely on parents to monitor websites? And life-saving drugs should be kept away by responsible parents and adults. Everything you said is true, but responsibility is the key. Youtube should be monitored in a chosen way, like options on a keypad. Parents can decide online whether not to allow their children to see videos deemed inappropriate, or allow them to watch all videos listed. This method could change everything! I promise that was my final change to my original plan. Thank you for listening (reading) my arguments.
quarterexchange

Con

"But what if parents come to a situation where the children are not supervised. At sleepovers, being home alone, and even sitting by yourself in your room can prove to be an excellent example"

Parents can ask the parents of a sleepover to supervise their kids or if looking up videos on youtube that are "innappropriate" is such a big deal then they can keep their kids from going on sleepovers.

Millions of people who enjoy videos on youtube that YOU define as "innapropriate" should not have to go without those videos for the sake of a child's sleepover simply because there is the slight risk that the child might go on Youtube without parental supervision.

In the case the child is homealone the parents can simply put a lock on the computer of a lock on Youtube.

Children old enough who are too independent to rely on their parents don't need protection from "inappropriate" videos. And in the case that they do all the parent has to do is put a lock on Youtube.

Youtube shouldn't have to spend money to be monitered in any way since you have no proven that viewing violence or cursewords somehow causes significant harm to children.

If parents don't like the risk of their children viewing videos they don't approve of on youtube all they have to do is block youtube.

You initially said that innappropriate videos should be banned and now you agree that it is the parents responsibility to monitor youtube themselves.

You have gradually given up your original stance.

Parents are already able to decide online which sites are and aren't appropriate, therefore Youtube does not need monitoring.

In conclusion my opponent agrees it is the parents job to monitor online videos for themselves.
My opponent has never brought forth proof or even evidence that Youtube has ever destroyed a young childs life and my opponent has never made a legitimate reason while she held her original stance that Youtube should take it upon themselves to monitor videos rather than the parents of the child themselves.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
kayteecurtquarterexchangeTied
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: Pros arguments were horrific! He had BOP and didn't deliver
Vote Placed by lewis20 5 years ago
lewis20
kayteecurtquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had the burden of proof and didn't deliver.
Vote Placed by detachment345 5 years ago
detachment345
kayteecurtquarterexchangeTied
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: Pro has the burden of proof, if Pro didn't prove anything then Con wins. Why do you keep vote bombing quarterexchange?
Vote Placed by liljohnny818 5 years ago
liljohnny818
kayteecurtquarterexchangeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really address args. Just said "didn't prove." Pro gets my ballot
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kayteecurtquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: "Youtube has caused the ruin of many great minds and souls" - what you talking 'bout willis? "I also can not prove anything, but take a look around! " - where on youtube? 1 pt to Pro for a non drive by first debate
Vote Placed by HandsofManos 5 years ago
HandsofManos
kayteecurtquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments were horrible, they provided no proof for their assertions. con won, hands down.