Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children.

My opponent stated an alternate definition of “children”. I could refute this in saying the interpretation of the subject greatly varies. Many see God as the ultimate creator, the parent of all. Also, using his own words against him, my opponent’s definition and that of the motion are not necessarily the same. Myself being an Atheist, however, I shall accept my opponent’s interpretation, which, as he says, is “a son or daughter of human parents” and “children meaning children, people of youth, youth meaning the early period of existence, growth, or development”. I ask that should I ever debate my opponent again, he supply the definition before any arguments so that I do not waste my time. Since my opponent does not supply a specific age range that “child” or “youth” refers to, I choose to interpret those terms legally - in the U. S. , a person is considered a child until they reach the age of 18 [1]. Now for my refutations. My opponent says that children see these cartoons as role models. This, in itself, is a ridiculous notion. First of all, children of 10 years and under are not supposed to be watching “Happy Tree Friends”. That leaves a span of 11-18 year olds who may watch this (remember, children only). Now who, audience, has ever heard of an 11-18 year old who looks up to a cartoon like “Happy Tree Friends”? I mean, lots of little kiddies watch Spongebob and I honestly don’t think I see any kids walking around, acting like a mini Spongebob or something [2]. To prove my opponent’s point even more ridiculous, how many 11-18ers watch the shows fuchsiania has stated, “Tellytubbies, Barney, and Sesame Street”? Also? Get real. What kind of kid is going to get crazy and start murdering everyone with a cake-slicer like that? My opponent stated a source for the fact that the videos are violent, which we’ve already established, but not for the fact that kids will see them as role models. My source? The world around us, today. I believe my opponent’s second contention to be a sadly mislead philosophy. I will start by correcting the inaccurate metaphor in which he supplied. Fuchsiania has said: “Think of fast food. Many people like fast food. So, fast food makes such people happier, in turn making them healthier. But, wait! Fast food isn't known to make people healthier! Hmm, what's wrong? Sure, there are short-term, surface benefits, but the long-term effects are not good. ” So let’s break this metaphor down. “Think of fast food. Many people like fast food. ” Sourceless, but true. Take Koopin, for example. Loves KFC. “So, fast food makes such people happier, in turn making them healthier. ” Yes, an appropriate metaphor would be that fast food makes people happier, and the happiness is what makes them healthier. Then my opponent goes on to say, “But wait! Fast food isn’t known to make people healthier! ” Whoa, hold your horses, Fuchsiania! Did I say fast food makes people healthier? No, I said that happiness makes people healthier! But indeed, the happiness may be generated by the fast food. And there are cons, as my opponent goes on to say, all of which by the end of my speech I will have refuted, thus revealing there are no true cons. Even so, somehow, the conclusion is wrong. “Children will lose their fear, their barrier to violence, thanks to Happy Tree Friends. ” One moment. (Qynze pauses from speech, goes backstage. Next, something is heard: “AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ”) Back to my speech. Because of a cartoon, children will lose their fear? Because of a cartoon? No way! Will they lose their barrier to violence? Nope. Didn’t think so. Audience, something’s obviously wrong with this point. Even better? NO SOURCE! What is it with sources and people these days? ! My source? Once again, reality itself backs me with truth. In accepting my opponent’s definition of “children”, my first point is refuted. However, my next two points have been left standing: HEALTH - Laughter is often the best medicine. Whether it's because of good humor, funny lines, idiotic actions, or because the whole thing is just plain stupid, "Happy Tree Friends" is bound to generate laughter like any other television show, good or bad. Mocking laughter, light, airy laughter - laughter in general is healthy for the soul and mind [3]. WHAT NOT TO DO - We learn from mistakes - but not just our mistakes [4]. Other people's mistakes, other groups' mistakes, parents' mistakes, businesses' mistakes, television shows' mistakes - see where I'm getting at? By subconsciously judging the video, you are also telling yourself: Don't do this, it's stupid, I don't like it, so no one else will. Yeah, I think we all agree it's better to let "Happy Tree Friends" make all the mistakes. Alternatively, you could be telling yourself: Hey, this is great, let's use it. So yeah, "Happy Tree Friends" first. Audience, I have refuted ALL of my opponent’s points. Voting for my side, Pro, does not mean you like “Happy Tree Friends”. So don’t be afraid to show you’re true colours! Vote for the Proposition! Thanks, all, for a good debate. I can’t wait for the next round. Sources: 1. . http://www.child-autism-parent-cafe.com... 2. . http://www.chacha.com... 3. . http://helpguide.org... 4. . http://stress.about.com...