Pokemon must be outlawed

Here are my opponent's points and their refutations a. Pokemon should be promoted First my opponent states that we are protecting our children from monsters they may be encountering in the future and thus we should promote pokemon. He is clearly misled. My opponent gives the example of a mountain lion being visible and a child not going near it because it thinks it may be a charizard. Unfortunately this is not the case. What my opponent overlooks is the fact that the majority these pokemon creature are meant to seem harmless and lovavble on the outside. (The original Japanese connontation was pocket monsters which were supposed to be small creatures). Now looking at a mountain lion, it seems like a harmless growlith on the outside. It is only too late when the child realizes that the lion is not harmless and as already take by suprise with its flamethrower. Again and again we see the main characters of pokemon rushing towards a pokemon to catch it or pet it, only to be met with various painful attacks. (Torkchicks, pikachus, and the like) Now it is true that most kids don't have pokeballs readily available, but those that do will not hesitate to use them and those that don't wouldn't mind using a rock instead. What is the harm, the creatures pulverize each other already right? This will lead to attacks on the children. b. A child is the embodiment of a pokemon Err... no it is really not. usually most children don't say their name over and over again like all other pokemon. But besides that, how can we compare our children to something like these pokemon. We may place regulations on them, but we don't enslave them and call out attacks for the to fight each other. We can't compare things like this. Plus if we look at the prime example of the series, Ash and Pikachu, as you provided in a youtube link. Now Pikachu refused to go in a Poke Ball and electricuted Ash until Ash finally succumbed to Pikachu's desires and allowe it to stay outside a Poke Ball. If we took your interpretaion, then it is clearly shown that your child/pokemon is able to use electric methods to break the walls the parents place around them. That is in no way ok, so in both aspects your argument cannot be taken to heart. c. Team Rocket is a stalker/space program and must be abused 1. My opponent is right when he says that stalkers should be handled correctly, but he misinterpreted the true point of that statement I made earlier on. Team Rocket is abused and that is all great, but the fact that they are able to be launched thousands of feet into the air and still survive is what is misleading to kids. Do we want our kids jumping off cliffs and the like thinking that they will survive like team rocket and on another side, do we want kids to think that even after a bad guy is launched thousands of feet in the air, they will still survive, thus leading kids to question all theories of gravity and life as we know it? 2. Now the space program idea seems to answer nothing about Team Rocket not dying from cataclysmic falls, but though it is true that the space program has taken serious blows and survived, it is also true that during those blows, maunly shuttle crashes, people havbe died, and to deny that would not only be a dishonor to their memories, but deceptino of kids everywhere. d. Cheap animation costs are great Cheap animation costs are not good for a simple reason. They show are kids that cutting corners are ok and that they don't have to work hard to make money. This is the wrong message. We want to imbue high standards in kids so that they succeed in school and in life. A show where the backgrounds and the characters rarely move is not the best example. The business front my opponent mentions is on a front seperate from the main audience of pokemon: grade school children, not business owners, and therefore has no weight on the role of pokemon when we look at the people who watch.play it. e.Horrible punchlines inspire people Again, looking at our audience, grade school kids, there really is no inspiration, resources, or mental capactity to start a TV show or the like. Horrible punchlines lead to children telling worse and worse jokes at school and with friends, leading to a staler sense of comedy, decline in the use of the funny bone, and an overall decline in the image of America's youth f.Pokemon promotes listening to parents When we look at pokemon, it honestly shows no hints of promoting obedience. Really its quite the contrary. The show leads kids to addicition, with a to be continued, after practically every single episode. This leads kids to want to consistently watch Pokemon and play the game even when their parents are telling them to stop. Plus, pokemon trading cards also give a lust for these children to constantly acquire more and more trading cards. A prime example of this can be seen my local Wal-Mart. A young boy ventured into the trading card section and found a pack of pokemon cards. He began begging his mom for pokemon cards and she kept saying, "No, we just got some last week", but this kid was adamant and made a fit, leading his mom to embarrasment and shwing clearly that pokemon promotes disobedience, not obedience. Finally on the Africa point, food ios a necessity to survive and Pikachu really isn't, so that point is negated. Now my opponent thinks I am misleading young people, but I must truly ask, why promote something that clearly does so much wrong to our children, that glues them to either the television, or a paper card, give them notions of fighting each other, and making them think they can cut corners on life and survive great falls. Now that I have refuted my opponents arguments on my starting statements, I must stongly urge an affirmative ballot.