This in mind, my opponent has stated that children adopt television as a fill-in parent. To me, this means that children get an undue amount
of their early childhood education from the "Idiot Box"...
Ah, now words are being put into my mouth....
I never mentioned, or implied that children are adopting television as a fill-in parent (though
doubtless some are). Instead, I mentioned how without parents home to guide them, they can turn to gangs (and just deviant youths in general) as
parental fill-ins and these children are the ones responsible for the violence. Nobody worries much about the child who comes home from school and
starts watching TV or playing video games. These aren't the ones going around jacking cars, knocking over liquor stores, or raping women in dark
alleys...and that is why the idea that the media causes such behavior, quickly falls apart.
Likewise, I mentioned how, to be successful, entertainment must be at least partially
identifiable to the audience. My opponent countered with
How could your average american citizen relate to that? How is it possible that they know what it feels like to have a Colombian Cartel
destroy their family, and be entertained by the repercussions?
True, most don't identify exactly
with this, but partially? Of course. What American doesn't identify with the sense of loss of those who
lost family members to foreign terrorists. Who cannot relate to that? While doubtful that anyone in the audience experienced Arnold's character's
situation exactly, certainly, there is the ability there to relate to his character's emotions...and that is where this partial identifying comes
All that is needed, to see that violence in entertainment isn't responsible for violence in society, is to look at yourselves and those you know. Do
you (or them) watch horror movies? Do you play violent video games? Do you watch action movies? Now, do you go out and knock over convenience
stores, mug people, or commit violent crimes? No, I didn't think so. And regardless of what any scientist who never leaves his lab believes....this
simply isn't the case.
But this is only part of the argument. For purposes of this debate, sexual attitudes are likewise being blamed on the media. Just as blaming the
media for society's violence is grasping at straws...it is equally so when speaking of sex. My opponent stated the following, after citing a study
by the CMPA, that spoke of sex in entertainment...
This is exactly what I've been saying all along. The ever-present use of these sorts of messages in entertainment is causing a breakdown of
society in general. This can be seen with ever-increasing reports of rape.
If this were true, then certainly, with the amount of sex on European television, rape would be a sheer epidemic there!
In the States, it's a
big deal if an actor shows his bum on television. In Europe, full frontal nudity (something even eschewed in most Hollywood movies), is commonplace.
Surely, this must create nations of purely sex-crazed fiends! No, of course not. Have you ever watched a show containing sex without content? Have
you seen shows of sex without strings? Do you then, have warped views on sex? As with violence in entertainment, all one need do is to look at
themselves, and those they know, to decide their position on this issue, and realize how absurd the idea of the media responsibility is....