The Instigator
ETKANG
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

is tv harmful?

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  
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: 6/6/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,317 times Debate No: 4356
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

ETKANG

Pro

Hello, and my name is ET and the topic of this debate is "is tv harmful". Well, here i go.
my first reason is: watching late night shows has been connected with poor sleeping patterns in individuals. This result is less concentration by these individuals during daytime, they are less alert and are usually subjected to emotional tramuna.
This is my second reason: TV helps proomoting violence in the society. most people cannot differiate between reality and drama.
My third reason is that TV can slow down young children's development. It will make students not exercise much. Done!
Rezzealaux

Con

I negate, that 'TV is harmful'.

As long as my opponent does not prove that TV is harmful, I win the debate. I shall do that by eliminating his arguments.

His first contention discusses late night TV shows and sleeping patterns. However, I don't think that this means that TV is necessarily harmful, as anything can be harmful if it is misused. Paper can be connected with suffocation if you stuff it down your throat, but there's a reason why we don't think of paper as harmful because when you're using it normally, i.e. writing drawing or printing on it, it doesn't really have any harmful effects. The fact that TV can be used late at night and that it disturbs sleeping patterns is irrelevant to TV itself. I'll list a few more items that we don't consider to be harmful but can be harmful next round if my opponent asks.

Also, it's conditional, so it doesn't prove that TV in all usage is harmful. Grammar dictates that if a statement is "X is Y" where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, then Y is an attribute of X at all times. Of course, the resolution is in a question form of that statement so I shall modify my example: "The cup is plastic". His argument here is basically that "Sometimes the cup is plastic", and what I'm saying is that the argument doesn't fly if the resolution says that the cup is [always] plastic - or rather, that TV is [always] harmful.

The second reason he presents is that TV promotes violence, and a subpoint of that is that most people cannot tell the difference between reality and drama. I respectfully disagree. I think that most people are able to tell the difference between reality and what's on a TV screen, as we all adjust volume, flip through channels and maybe turn on captions once in a while. While I agree that most people also get drawn into certain shows or movies on TV while they're watching it, this isn't a justification to believe that people think what they saw on TV is also part of the real world when they finish watching whatever they were watching. The justification that my opponent uses does not link to the point he is trying to prove.

His last argument doesn't work at all. TV slows down children's development? I didn't learn to speak unbroken english until second grade, and guess where I learned most of how to speak english? BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY and THE MAGIC SCHOOL BUS. Those are TV shows, by the way. I also learned a lot of science from them at the same time. (You don't need to understand that much english to understand the aforementioned series.) So, there you have it. TV actually speeds up children's development, as for ESL students it will help them learn english, and for pretty much all students it can help them learn many things - in my case, science.

His part about exercise doesn't matter, as TV does not necessarily impend on exercise time. Just don't sit down on the couch and watch TV all day. This conditionality was discussed in my second response to his first point.

Since his warrant isn't sufficient to affirm,
it's conditional,
and his justifications don't link to his points,

you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nickjno1fan 8 years ago
nickjno1fan
wow, you replied, haha. I'm sorry con person, I think that this argument is just little bit biased on the government. I lost when I was the opposition. Unfortunately, the pro person(ET) wasnt able to give more general info with his points. Thanks anyway, you"ve just helped me with my project.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Also, it's conditional, so it doesn't prove that TV in all usage is harmful. Grammar dictates that if a statement is "X is Y" where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, then Y is an attribute of X at all times. Of course, the resolution is in a question form of that statement so I shall modify my example: "The cup is plastic". His argument here is basically that "Sometimes the cup is plastic", and what I'm saying is that the argument doesn't fly if the resolution says that the cup is [always] plastic - or rather, that TV is [always] harmful." (R1)
Posted by nickjno1fan 8 years ago
nickjno1fan
That was a good round, but I do feel like butting in just to get my question answered. Here's it goes:
This statement mostly applies to children and as we know, they cannot be supervised at all times. Who knows what a 5 year old could be watching with the parent's absence. Obviously, he is too young to know what PG means. So he watches a movie with witches involved, later on, he runs around the house with a broom under his butt. The next thing you know is that his other leg is missing because he tried to jump off a building.
I might have exagerrated a bit but nonetheless, please defend.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Well josh, I don't mean to make your job last even longer (well actually, I do), but I voted CON. :D

RFD: CON hit the nail on the head. PRO merely manages to demonstrate that misuse of tv can be harmful. In addition, the so-called harms which he points out are merely conditional. Add that to the fact that PRO merely made this one round and that's plenty of reason to justify my decision.
Posted by water123 8 years ago
water123
rezzeaiaux is good at debating
Posted by bablybabe 8 years ago
bablybabe
nice debate!bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
I apologize, I am currently at my friends house right now. Quite tired today, so I didn't realize I was commenting from his account.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
I didn't even notice it was one round until I was reviewing my case.
Posted by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
A one round debate is a easy win for the person going second.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
What is the point in a 1 round debate???
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by bablybabe 8 years ago
bablybabe
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by ETKANG 8 years ago
ETKANG
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
ETKANGRezzealauxTied
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