The Jeremy Kyle Show is unethical

(I waited some time before posting my response but can't promise that it's a long enough wait for you. I also live in UK and had to post before I went to bed or would miss my chance to reply because I am busy in the AM tomorrow.) Before I begin my debate, I would like to definitely congratulate and show gratitude toward my opponent in that they saved no new points for the final round of the debate. I appreciate that you politely left all points out for me to rebut so the final round is definitively conclusions I hope. Before I begin my constructive, I would like to rebut the debate of my opponent. Before I do, I honestly would like to say I appreciate the effort that went into his debate and it did indeed begin to open my mind to the opposing view on the matter. However, I felt that ironically that his opening point was on the bias of Jeremy Kyle yet the entirety of his debate was very biased indeed. Firstly, regarding your issue with the bias of Jeremy Kyle, most prominently to the tory's view of life, you might be surprised to find that I totally agree with. The reason I feel no shame in saying that Jeremy Kyle publicly displays bias towards a certain way of life is that his job on the show isn't just to present, but to advise. This is where I think that the first point you raised falls apart at the seams. It is not that there was a single flaw in the point itself, it's that the point altogether is irrelevant to the debate. The definition for 'unethical' in this debate was "not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behaviour" and in the United Kingdom and USA both of which have many different versions of the program including the almost mirrored program Dr. Phil as well as the more abstract parallel program, the Oprah show, are all displayed and considered very ethical indeed. The issue is that perhaps in a country such as China, displaying a TV show where one displays strong political ideals and imposes it on others may not only be considered unethical but perhaps be punishable by law, in the nations of UK and USA. which are the prominent nations where this show is broadcasted, this is neither unethical nor illegal for it is both socially acceptable to express strong political views in a non-violent manner and professionally acceptable in an advising program tin impose ones vies on another. I shall adress the rest of my rebuttal to this point in my constructive. The second point to rebut is the one regarding the attack on Jeremy Kyle himself. In fact the grounds for my second rebuttal are nor similar but identical to the ones of the first. The reason I rebutted your first point was that it did not qualify as unethical if we used your definition and was thus irrelevant to your debate. The reason I am rebutting your attack on Jeremy Kyle is that no matter how unethical Jeremy Kyle's actions were in his marriage and no matter how unqualified an adviser he is because of this the debate is regarding 'The Jeremy Kyle Show' and we are to discuss whether the named show is unethical, not whether its presenter is ethical in his life outside of the show. This was a totally and absolutely irrelevant point to your debate and I suggest we do not go any further on the matter. The best point that I feel was raised in my opponent's debate has to be the polygraph test. I do not think it was the best point because it had any strength to speak of but rather that it was the only point that could, possibly, be used in regards to his (forgive me if you are female) debate. The rebuttal to this point actually took me some time to conjure up and as it was the last one startled me and caused me to restructure my entire anticipative structure to his debate. Now, I could agree that if the Jeremy Kyle Show uses the polygraph test on its guests and assumes 96% accuracy whilst the claimed 15% to 61% is the absolute range of accuracy then indeed the show has been found to have a great flaw in its make-up. Nonetheless, what is this to do with the ethics of the show itself? The polygraph results are never used for legal prosecution of either guest and the polygraph results are only ever used to filter out what could be lies form the interview answers that are so often repeated in the show from the interrogation so as to point out when the person contradicts themselves. It is not a matter of ethics but rather a matter of manners that is being raised here. And since there is no apparent social opposition nor professional opposition, in the entertainment or talk show industry I believe that according to the debate's definition of unethical, this is not actually unethical. To begin my constructive I would like to raise the point that 'The Jeremy Kyle Show' is officially listed as ' British daytime television tabloid talk show' according to Wikipedia (link at end of this round's debate). Tabloid talk shows are definitely both socially and professionally open to extreme bias and public mockery of any person on the talk show, even Top Gear is listed under this although it's predominant listing would be as an automobile show. The definition of unethical that we are using in this debate enables me to display 'The Jeremy Kyle Show' as ethical by merely showing that it is not socially unacceptable and not professionally unacceptable and what is apparent is that it is acceptable on both levels. Thus, I can conclude, for now, that The Jeremy Kyle Show is indeed, ethical. http://en.wikipedia.org...