The Instigator
sorihani
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
A-ThiestSocialist
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

r media activities a threa to judicial activities

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: 7/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 826 times Debate No: 4806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

sorihani

Pro

media has totally been interfering so such an extent dat it literally smacks someones life into pieces.therefore,i think i m correct on this point.my opponent i think will b able to correct me.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

I thought of several ways to take this resolution, and I decided to frame it in the way an English speaking human would have spelled it had he clicked spell check on his microsoft computer.

First I will refute my opponents claim.

"media has totally been interfering so such an extent dat it literally smacks someones life into pieces.therefore,i think i m correct on this point.my opponent i think will b able to correct me."

There are two answers to what you said. First, you "think" you're correct on your point which has no evidence, and I "think" you're incorrect. Your analysis has no merit, thus if I provide analysis with merit, no matter how logical or illogical, your point is incorrect since we both think we're right, however only one of us uses logic, evidence and reasoning to provide our own ideas and support them.

Let's look at what your main thesis is in your long and sinuous argument. "the media has been interfering... dat it litterally smacks someones life into pieces"

This doesn't have any real implications on judicial activities, all you've said it some media publicists have a history of running personal attacks on others. When we look into the judicial process, the media must be shown as a threat in its' activities. For this to be true, the media must have an overwhelming biased side in the judicial process; which does not exist. Investigative journalists don't have a history of continually backing one side or the other, sure talk shows and entertainment shows may have a bias for celebrities or for prosecutors (Nancy Grace) but this isn't your actual media, instead it's entertainment found on television or in magazines.

""And, to further prove my point, I think I'm right unless someone doesn't, in which case I may be right, unless he or she isn't, which would further make me right, assuming that the side he or she took was completely argued, in which case we could both be wrong if we didn't argue to the full extent possible, but I think I'm right so yeah.""

See how much we can contrast the improvements of intellect through discussion if we think things through??
Debate Round No. 1
sorihani

Pro

fine!i totally agree on ur point dat reality shows r a medium of entertainment.bt mr/ms speaker dont u think reality shows is nowhere near udiciary.my point is dat ok let me give u simple eg.if a person is under serious circumstances d media rather than rescuing dat person starts video shooting it and relay it on tv.media's influence is immense but is equally corruptive.media may it b d aarushi case or d tehelka case media has always given pretrial reports against d accused.a leading news channel once announced "aarushi ki cheekh"and god knows d content it gave had just no relevance to actuality.not only this even the father of our nation once quoted

i believe in equality for everyone except d reporters and photographers

well i leave my opponent to ponder upon d fact dat media has crossed all its ethical limits,violated journalistic norms and seriously affected d rights of d accused.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

Let me draw a simple definition which should prove your ideas false. True media activities in the journalistic sense are not for profit, instead for the reporting of the middle ground of facts, as media comes from the latin word "medius" meaning from the middle. You talk to the media just filming something instead of helping someone and may be able to give one example of this, but it doesn't relate to judicial activities. Furthermore, what you speak of isn't the actions of the media as a whole, it's rare instances from rogue "journalists" and "reporters."
Debate Round No. 2
sorihani

Pro

m sorry mr/ms speaker wat u say is just not at all relevant to my argument for u.u say the examples i have given r just mere instances but u better know that there are several such examples which when i start quoting will finish all ur doubts.my idea to give these examples was basically to show how drastically d media has acted in worse situations.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

I think there are several problems with this debate in general, you aren't from the US (which isn't bad) but I am, so we're basing things off different grounds. Let's simply look whollistically at the media, across the globe, and equate that the media's bias, whenever prevelent is on both sides, as opinion and journalist bias has a reverse spectrum, but true "media" as we're talking about relates only to the middle honest reporting as according to the true definition, which you failed to outline, so if someone in the media does become a threat to judicial activities, they are not longer in the media because of doing such an act. The definition does not include anyone who would do such a thing.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
My head hurts, but I think I understand all the pro arguments now. 1. the media interferes with lives of celebritites and causes them difficulty 2. some media members continue to film rather than help when the help would prevent harm. 3. Some members of the media are given information about a case before the trial.

I still fail to see how any of this supports the resolution that the media will pose a threat to judicial activities.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Proper English please.

What's with the sudden influx of Indians?
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
Lol wut a gr8 tpic! I h8 u. -.-

So Logical, what are you up to? Just waiting around for the new site?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
That the media is a threat to the judicial system? Easy for CON, given that PRO really has no argument.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Me thinks this will be a debate where PRO either forfeits all of his/her rounds or responds with three sentence rebuttals.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
So what does the resolution mean?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by sorihani 8 years ago
sorihani
sorihaniA-ThiestSocialistTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
sorihaniA-ThiestSocialistTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
sorihaniA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
sorihaniA-ThiestSocialistTied
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