Should every home have a TV

Since this is the last round of debate, i will point out a few flaws in my opponents arguments. "Family time is doing something together that has communicating and interaction. "I do not see how family time can be so easily denegrated into certain actions. This would mean that a parent taking a child to the park and eating a nice picnic lunch is not family time unless they talk. (you can exchange parent and child for any possible persons). I am unsure how my opponent chose to make that distinction without paying attention to what it would mean. I don't believe that is what family time means. I do not know if many people would, as family time can be as simple as being in the same room at the same time. Possibly watching TV. "Family movies" would not be considered a "family time" event. Even eating dinner without talking would not be a "family time" event. My opponent's definition is extremely narrow, and does not present a strong argument against the idea of TV being used for family time. "TV makes you fat. "Being sedentary, and not excersising, but choosing to eat unhealthy food makes you happy. It is unhealthy to exercise all the time, so something is needed to allow relaxation. Some people choose to read, others choose to write, some choose to watch TV. This is a baseless assertion, with no evidence provided, and a blatant Simple Cause fallacy. If TV makes people fat, then doesn't that mean that all non-fat people don't, and never have, watched TV. If not, then this statement carries no value. "Plus the kids will be too tempted to watch something else besides educational purposes. "It depends on the child, and whether or not the parent chooses to allow them to do that. Then again, i see no issue with entertainment. Per the website previously cited, children have a psychological need for fun. This need would be met by TV, so tv becomes beneficial, and thus of value to a household. I do not believe many people will be anything that has neither utility nor personal value (which includes sentimental, aesthetic, and intrinsic). The fact that people hold garage sales for old UNWANTED things is evidence enough in support of this fact, but i will provide more evidence. The existence of museums provides reason to believe that, though something may not have utility, it still has value. The willingness of people to fix appliances, or hire someone to do so, provides reason to believe that things of utility have value. "You need excercise. "Agreed. That has nothing to do with the existence of a TV in the household, though TV can be used as a way to "bring the gym home", with videos like Insanity, an entire serious of videos dedicated to getting a person fit and healthy. Gym memberships are costly; buying or renting gym equipment is costly. Insanity is a video that doesn't require much equipment. I wonder how i know that. .. .OH wait. TV. So my opponent's statement does more in favor of the PRO position than the CON position. This debate has been centered on the "family unit" as the primary audience of TV. Though families do make up an entire demographic, they are not the only one, though majority of what has been stated can be extrapolated to the general population. I will concede that some homes do not have the ability to purchase a TV, but i would like to note that this debate did not center on whether every home COULD have a TV, just whether or not every home SHOULD have a TV. My opponent has failed to present any reasons as to why every home should not have a TV. The arguments that were presented related more to the time spent watching TV than whether or not TV's should be in every household. The arguments that were presented that were not related to time spent watching TV were more beneficial to the PRO position than the CON position.