This house believes that tv(television) has a negative effect on society.

1. Pro has the burden of proving that the bad effects of television outweigh the good effects. To fulfill that burden Pro must provide a method for measuring good and bad effects, and then apply that measure to the predominant good and bad effects of television. Pro has not even attempted to do that. It is as if one set out to prove "commercial airline travel is not worth the risk" and then does nothing but cite two crashes. Or if one wanted to argue "fire has a negative effect on society" and then only citing a couple of cases of bad fires. Pro's case against television fails from insufficiency, even without rebuttal. 2. The many benefits of television include bringing to the people: a. educational programming (children's ed programs, Discovery Channel, H&G, PBS, History Channel, Travel Channel, C-SPAN 3) b. news programming (four full-time news channels, major networks) c. foreign language programming (serving both immigrant populations and those interested in foreign language and culture) d. programs that enable viewing of important and historic events (inaugurations, Olympics, space exploration) e. an enormous variety of entertainment programming well beyond "sex and violence" (PBS, A&E, major networks) f. entertainment for adults that includes mature themes (A&E, Oxygen, major networks) g. government affairs (CSPAN 1&2, state and local government channels) I challenge Pro to establish a metric by which the benefits can be measured. How do the merits of watching a moon landing or an inauguration rate against the demerits of soap operas? Even a few inspirational experiences are more likely to have a positive effect on society then endless hours of soap operas a negative effect. 3. Pro states a belief that the exposure to violence on television is harmful, but only claims studies to have shown that for short term effects in small children. I accept that as likely. Children get worked up over things they see and are likely to act out for a time. That does not prove overall harm to society because there is (a) no evidence that the effects are permanent, (b) no evidence that a bland, controlled environment for children produces a better society, and (c) no evidence that alternatives to television would produce a better society. I challenge Pro to provide proof of each. 4. Pro cites a study that 80% of content of soap operas is sexual in nature. (a) This is obvious nonsense. I was once forced to watch soap operas during a hospital stay. Soap operas are certainly dominated by romantic themes, and by that broad definition is "sexual in nature," but there will always be programming with romantic themes whether or not there is television. (b) Most soap operas are on when children are supposed to be in school. If they are not in school, that's not a problem with the television set. 5. Studies that show a correlation between dysfunctional attitudes towards sex and television viewing of sexual situations are not showing cause and effect. Which teenagers are viewing a lot of sexually charged television? Which teenagers are not viewing sexually charged television? The one's with irresponsible patents and dysfunctional home environments are doing the viewing, those with responsible parents and good home lives are not. The fault is not in the television, it is in the parents or home life. If there were no television, the alternatives would be no better. Pro notes a study of women 14 to 18 watching X-rated movies. Why were these young women allowed to watch X-rated movies? Clearly there was a problem other than the TV set. 6. Pro cites a study, claiming "Televised violence suggests to young children that aggression is appropriate in some situations, especially when it's used by charismatic heroes... It also erodes a natural aversion to violence." This is good for society. Charismatic heroes fight for justice in stereotyped situations; there is rarely doubt that the bad guy is really, really bad. It is not good for society to teach children that justice is never worth fighting for. The idea that there is a "natural aversion to violence" is unproven. The goal should be to teach measured response, not passivity. 7. The studies Pro cites do not examine the social context of the sex and violence. Japan is well-known for media having substantial sex and violence. Americans get to see it in anime. Yet, Japan has the least violent society on earth and one of the most sexually responsible populations of teenagers. If the media was the cause of aggression and sexual irresponsibility, as Pro suggests, then this would be impossible. Clearly, the simple media cause that Pro claims is wrong. It depends upon the broader society. 8. I challenge Pro to produce studies that I can actually access and examine. I could find very little on changingchannels.org. They offer biased opinion with little support. They claim "thousands of studies" but cite few. I do not trust them to accurately summarize study results. Many of their handful of links are dead. 9. There is substantial counter-evidence that violence in society is unrelated to TV violence. "As liberal media critic Todd Gitlin has written, "Violence on the screens, however loathsome, does not make a significant contribution to violence on the streets. Images don't spill blood.".." Studies showed violence increasing in the early days of television, when both baby-boomers and TV were young, but after about 1975 and boomers matured, the correlation disappeared. It wasn't TV, it was the demographics -- young people are always more violent, TV or not. http://www.reason.com... This is consistent with TV viewing having a short term stimulatory effect on children, which we would expect, but no long term negative effect on society. The collective literature was reviewed, and similar conclusion reached, by Stuart Fischoff, Ph.D., in an invited address at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association http://www.calstatela.edu... "The importance of the question of external validity, i.e., valid generalizations to the real world, is monumental when it comes to taking lab results about acquisition of violent attitudes, values or behaviors or about desensitization to sexually violent behavior and predicting real world behavior. It is especially important when the results of such research are used as the basis for advocating or passing socially restrictive government legislation. ... And, endless assertions in the survey literature notwithstanding, the fact that rapists and murderers prefer to watch films compatible with their appetites is no indication of a causal connection, any more than the fact that golfers like to watch golf games proves that watching golf games cultivated their interest in golf." In sum, lab experiments showing short-term desensitization do not establish negative effects on society, and correlation does not establish causation.