should there be a limit to how much violence is shown on tv to children
Debate Rounds (3)
children should not be exposed to the amount of violence that is shown because some kids like to mimic of some shows which can lead to potential thoughts of those vilent act such as bulltying another.
injuries : kids can become who have wild imagination will believe any thing they might see on tv making them attempt what they had seen such as a karate move that had been used on a friend because it was "done on tv" making me think i can do it, it will not only put another friend in danger but your self who might mess up the move thus hurting your self.
future: if a child is exposed to so much violence on tv and has now become a adult those episode of wacky cartoon going out there way to hurt another are now clicked in your brain making you a victim of violent thoughts in your head even though it was just something silly like tom and jerry taking a giant hammer and wacking one another and evrey thing come out peachie but taking a gun and killing an innocent human being and takeing there life and then waiting in prison for thing to become peachy just like in the cartoon.
Ok, so everyone who has a child or has a younger brother or sister you may know of the new anti-bullying segment in Sesame Street. If this challenge were implemented in the actual world that would be taking away those shows. These shows are ment to help kids to help stop bullying. This also brings me to my next point.
Article about "The Good Bird's Club": http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
All shows with violence 9 out of 10 shows have a resolution that helps stop the violence. So this is also related to the Anti-Bullying Shows argument I had brought up above. If this challenge is implemented this will take away that part of the show where they are shown how to resolve violence.
So my challenger is also my friend and this is his first time on this site so make sure next round you refute or argue against my arguements
I understand what u mean about anti bullying show but do you really think people will even need those shows if violence like that wasn't even exposed to children at a young age not even making them think about a thing of bullying because in there child hood violence like that was never exposed on a daily basis every time they put there eyes in front the TV so on the contrary it will reduce bullying rate.
Like l said before there wont even be a need for resolution if violence wasn't expose, lets be real here most of these kid after they come home from school go straight to the TV not even worrying about the contents that it has on and all that contents flowing in there brain and then guess whats next the world on there friends and family until they realize somebody is going to get hurt.
all i have to say last is there is a lot of violence in the world and by this being put into effect that will reduce by 43.7% because the children define the success of society so by helping them now from this exposure to violence are we not helping the world?
In this section you say if there were no shows with bullying, people won't need anti-bullying shows. This is a false accusation. Bullying and other forms of violence happen all around the world for various reasons, some being family issues. So these shows still will come in handy because they will still need to find out how to handle these conflictions.
This section also is a false accusation. Most children should be able to realize that everything they see isn't meant to be copied. If they are under the age of maturity level there parents/guardians should be supervising what the children watch.
Ok these are my refutes. Hopefully my challenger follows my debate structure as in above.
i dont think you understand what im tryings to say like when you said if this challenge were implemented in the actual world that would be taing away those shows . what im trying to do is stop violence not the anti bullying shows so those shows can stay just other show which contain violence.
you say all shows with violence 9 out of 10 shows have a resolution that is correct and false at thee same time because those 9 out of 10 shows resolution dont come until the end of the series making by then the children which we speak about have a short attention span to move on and who says they just dont pay attention to it i mean be honest what would they rather see two people talking about how sorry they are or them punching there faces let the kids decide.
i had actually said if there is no shows with violent there would be no need for bullying and if bullying come from various reason no matter what you say it always ends with violent or sometimes starts with it so these shows will come in handy but there really isn't a need.
U say that but who are you to tell how each kid process information given so you wuldnt know the way they view it not you and there are some parents who pay little attention to what there kids watch because of many reason with the world being so busy.
here they are now lets see what you got.
Ok you say that these anti-bullying shows would be able to stay but that would be going against your own argument. You say that ALL shows that contain violence will be banned. This would say that these shows with bullying in them even with the opposite idea of violence would be banned still.
For this I think that this is also a false accusation because a lot of people who watch movies and tv shows want to watch how the problem is solved. If you don't there is no point in watching the show.
Ok, to my challenger I wish us both good luck
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.