The over indulgence in our entertainment negatively affects how we view & treat each other.

Question for Pro: Who exactly are the “powers that be”???I apologize to my opponent but I must say that I had a very difficult time following exactly what the case that is being made here is. The resolution is about how entertainment affects our culture. I stated before as a clarification that my role would be to show Pros case as unreasonable but this is very difficult when there is no definitive case being made. Mostly all of Pros points are valid only if the premise is assumed, and other points either have no support or do not seem to have any relevance. In this round I will focus on showing Pros premise to be false by using his quotes. Before I begin a quick note is that Pro again makes statements about “overindulgence”. I mentioned earlier that this word is part of the debate, not an assumption in it. Since the word “over” in this case means “too much”, debating weather overindulgence in anything is bad is like debating weather crazy people are crazy. Exhibit A: A LeBron fan being ejected “Here is a fan of LeBron wearing his jersey at a Cleveland BASEBALL game & being ejected for that” Pro assumes that the fan was kicked out simply for wearing a LeBron James jersey, this is not the case. In the video we have news coverage of the very same incident, at 2:08 in you can see the news anchor stating that the couple was escorted out for their own safety because they were instigating the situation. “The majority are taking their personal feelings & turning it into a vendetta AGAINST LEBRON, while taking it out on his fan who's the minority” Pro is suggesting that the fans personal feelings toward LeBron lead them to take it out on this fan. For some this may be the case, for the majority it is not. Let’s first realize that this is a packed stadium full of people. Anytime you group thousands of passionate people together in an event, the need for crowd control to prevent incidents like this come into play. It happens in bars, clubs, parades, etc… It is part of human nature, not the result of entertainment. More importantly what bothers most fans in a case like this is not the personal vendetta people have against LeBron but the level of disrespect shown by this fan flaunting his jersey in front of the very fans who were affected by LeBron’s “decision”. Pro seems to think this has nothing to do with it. I would ask Pro, would you wear all white to a funeral? Would you keep your hat on while the national anthem is being played at an event? I hope not. What you wear says something to people around you. It is about respect not all about entertainment. Combine this with the point above and it is predictable that something like this might happen. Exhibit B: The NHL Finals riots in Vancity “I can make the case that if LeBron beat the Dallas Mavericks to claim his first championship away from Cleveland- Fans there would have reacted the same way Vancouver fans did” This is a debate. Hypothetical predictions are not an argument. “When you become addicted, you ignore all sense of right & wrong to get a fix by stepping on whoever may get in the way as long as it pertains only to your interests!” Yes I agree. What does this have to do with entertainment? One of the major issues with Pro argument is that it focuses on the actions of a small number of individuals, and trying to make a case that somehow entertainment in general seems to be bad because of it. No reasonable person condones what happened in Vancouver, but some people are just looking for a reason to act this way. Currently there are 1,700 police officers being sent to London to stop riots that started over the shooting of a man by police(2). While people may be upset about the incident I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that all of the crime and violence is because of the anger people have about what happened. Most of the crimes that occurred were referred to as “copy-cat criminal activity”. Many people, particularly young males tend to enjoy physical confrontation and an opportunity to break something. This is there opportunity. By this point the rioting in London has just as much to do with the shooting as the riots in Vancouver had to do with Hockey. Exhibit C: "We're in A Lot of Trouble!" “This all effects how we are treated & viewed by the elites who control what they want us to know by using entertainment as "tools" of spreading their propaganda on their order of things as they are TODAY.” I would ask my opponent to please explain what is meant by this statement. Who are the elites? What is their plan? What propaganda are you referring? “Exhibit A… mirrors our natural order of things by censoring the fan in X:A” As I have shown the fan was not censored. There was a legitimate reason for his being escorted out. “Vancity riots in X:B demonstrates that the level of ignorance in the overindulgence of entertainment” X:B demonstrates how stupid people can be when given a reason, just like in London. “Living under a security blanket of liberties & rights, when governments have proven time & time again, they contract & expand as it wants to by accommodating these changes to you(r) liberties.” Again, please explain. What changes to our liberties are you referring? “The same goes for this superiority complex when finding ways to only hold entertainers accountable & placing them on pedestals so you can chop them down whenever you deem it necessary as long as it pertains to your interests.” This sounds familiar. Anyway, this statement does not give any support for where its premise comes from so will focus on refuting it when Pro decides to give us an example in this debate. Conclusion A debate is conducted by supporting a resolution with contentions, and supporting those contentions with facts or reasoning to conclude those contentions are valid. Pro has made many claims and assumptions but has not supported a specific case leaving me unsure what argument to counter with. The resolution states that entertainment negatively affects how we treat each other. Entertainment is certainly an outlet for incidents to happen but the incidents Pro has provided are not only the exception rather then the norm, but also a result of human nature more so then entertainment. Pro has also made many wild statements that I can not begin to counter without understanding what he is saying. I will hold off on any counter argument until next round when I will hopefully have a better understanding of the full argument Pro is making. (1) http://www.youtube.com...(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk...