The Instigator
lmatos
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

how television corrupts the youth

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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,055 times Debate No: 21688
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

lmatos

Pro

Especially in American, Television programs and select stations do have a damaging effect on the youth of America. For example you take such shows on Comedy Central like "Tosh.0", which embellish the pain and suffering others part take in. Although it is quite comical to see others faults, as an adult I do not take anything shown on the program to influence my every day life; a young teen may see a video of someone jumping off a roof top into a pool and experiment on their own and may cause serious bodily harm. Even with the disclaimers pasted across the screen from start to finish there is still some accountability in showing the program. The bigger argument is that parents need to enforce higher rules and regulations on the programs their children are available to watch.
imabench

Con

" Television programs and select stations do have a damaging effect on the youth of America"
And laws and rules have been enacted to move those shows to later times during the night (after the kids should be asleep anyways) so that the kids wouldnt be even close to being able to watch these TV shows so no damage is being done of the children cant even stay up late enough to watch them.

"you take such shows on Comedy Central like "Tosh.0", which embellish the pain and suffering others part take in."
Youve chosen one of the most extreme examples out there to make an argument on, but I will focus on the part about pain and suffering others partake in.

First of all there are numerous cartoon shows that are chock full of pain and suffering yet kis find it the funniest thing in the world. Tom and Jerry is a very violent tv show but the cartoonish nature of the violence makes it fun and entertaining for children to watch without corrupting them. Spongebob has its fair share of violence (karate, jellyfish stings, etc) that anyone can see as violent but because of the cartoonish nature the violence is portrayed it has no damaging or corrupting effect on the youth of America. Secondly just because children and teens see any kind of violence on TV that certainly doesnt mean they are going to go out and try it. Teens watch TV for entertainment and for fun not for inspiration or ideas.

"Even with the disclaimers pasted across the screen from start to finish there is still some accountability in showing the program"
Thats not true at all. Take the Jackass movies, if someone dumb enough wants to repeat one of their stunts, gets hurt, and tries to blame the movie that at the beginning of the movie said "DONT DO THIS" then its the kids own damn fault. Tosh.0, Jackass, Beerfest, etc are all tv shows or movies that openly say not to do things you see in this movie. If teens go out and try the stuff they see anyways, its their own fault for disregarding the warnings and if they get hurt they have themselves to blame, not the TV shows or the movies.

"parents need to enforce higher rules and regulations on the programs their children are available to watch."
We dont live in a society where the government has to raise the kids of parents for them, that what the parents are supposed to do. Your an adult so if your kids are doing something you dont like, fix it your own way dont say that "the government must do something about this tragedy that could be avoided if i simply turned off the tv", just handle it yourself and do what your allowed to do as a parent.

TV doesnt corrupt youth, its all for entertainment and the tv shows that do go a little over the top openly claim to not do any of the stuff you see on TV. If the kids do that stuff its not the TV's fault or the parents fault, its the kids fault for not having more then 10 brain cells to realize they shouldnt even be doing any of that stuff.
Debate Round No. 1
lmatos

Pro

As for the response to "Tom and Jerry, Sponge Bob, etc." as one can see they are called cartoons for a reason. Children who watch these shows are fully aware that what is going on in the show are not real, contributing to such belief, children can see that what is going in the show are with drawings of animals and objects, i.e. a sponge. Children can tell the difference between a cartoon drawn up on a computer and real life television. Taking a cartoon and a real life television show, portraying real life effects as a broken arm, or a cartoon displaying a abnormally large bandage on a wound to complete the comedy sketch are two entirely different things to compare and contrast.

In my previous argument, there was never a mention of any "government regulation", all i suggested was that the parents need to fine tune their parenting skills for the sake of their children. Simply agreeing and tweaking my words do no count as an argument.
imabench

Con

1) So when you have cartoon violence without warnings of not to do the things you see on TV, Kids wont do it....
But when you have real life violence that clearly has warnings to not to the things you see on TV, all of a sudden kids are helpless beings and are drawn to do what they see o TV.....

If kids and teens are as influenced by television as you claim then children would be corrupted by any kind of violence they see on TV. Yet that is not true because they do know to not repeat the stuff they see on cartoons even though the cartoons do not release disclaimers saying not to do the stuff you see on TV. Since teens and kids are smart enough to not be corrupted by shows that do not release disclaimers, then they are also smart enough to not repeat stunts on TV shows that do release disclaimers and expessively say to not do anything you see on this TV show.

2) "In my previous argument, there was never a mention of any "government regulation", all i suggested was that the parents need to fine tune their parenting skills for the sake of their children"

"parents need to enforce higher rules and regulations on the programs their children are available to watch."

The second statement was where I thought you refered to government regulation, I must have misunderstood since any time someone refers to any kind of "regulation" they are referring to the government.

TV doesnt corrupt youth, its all for entertainment and the tv shows that do go a little over the top openly claim to not do any of the stuff you see on TV...
Debate Round No. 2
lmatos

Pro

The main point of the last argument was to enforce that children and young adults can distinguish between reality such as humans hurting oneself on a television show, or a cartoon done by computer where the images that are portrayed can be and most of the time are excessive and over dramatic. Children can see the difference in a giant cat falling off a cliff as opposed to a human falling off a cliff and what the two differ from. A cartoon is a cartoon for a reason because young individuals are taught for future references about how it is "not real" and that a cartoon is simply a computer doing the work. Whereas watching real television, with REAL people doing stunts that can cause harm can make them want to try, even with disclaimers.
imabench

Con

TV shows do not corrupt children, children can tell when to not repeat the violence they see on TV (The Pro eve admits this) the violence they do see on other TV shows has disclaimers warning not to do this, risky TV shows air only late at night so that the children cannot actually be up to watch it, parents and the government control how much TV kids watch by controlling how late they can stay up or by controlling the watershed hour of when more Vulgar content can be shown on TV. All of this shows that TV does not corrupt children and that society as a while has collaborated to make sure that TV does not corrupt children.

I will introduce no new arguments since that would be improper, therefore I will thank the Pro for a fun debate and I thank the voters for reading :)
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 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
lmatosimabenchTied
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 dropped all of his arguments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lmatosimabenchTied
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: is it me or did pro drop almost EVERY argument con said? And the refutations he had where rather... poor? Also con sufficiently refuted all of pros points, proving there are current regulation on the business already. He proved TV shows do not corrupt children.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
lmatosimabenchTied
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: Con dealt with everything Pro said, and his arguments remained rather untouched
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
lmatosimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Are ye ready kids! Aye aye captain! Anyway, I end up voting off of con's rebuttals of pro's points, when pro only reiterated his own points, without actually defending his points against con's attacks. Easy round.