All politics propaganda should be banned

Debate accepted. Firstly, it's on Pro to define exactly what he's arguing in "politics propaganda", which he has failed to do in one round. Additionally the BoP is on him/her to show that "television should be banned" because it "affects how people live". Not only that, but Pro also has to provide evidence that it "leads to patriotism" and to "people dying for no reason". The following problems with these three assertions are: C1.] The television is primarily a tool for entertainment, and it covers an incredibly wide spectrum of difference topics--not only news coverage. People watch television for dramatic and/or comedic purposes, to inform themselves with documentaries and a whole host of other reasons. Pro essentially argues that the television is used for one thing [promoting politics propaganda] but this is absolutely not the case. More to the point, there are many other alternative ways that bias and propaganda can be projected. For example, one could argue that there is propaganda on the Internet--to a greater extent than the television, one could also make a case for propaganda appearing in music, literature, and art, as well as other creative outlets. Once again, television programming is extraordinarily varied. Do nature documentaries also promote political propaganda? Or how about period dramas? Obviously the answer[s] is no to both. There is in fact no valid reason for banning television, especially on the basis of political propaganda that does not even exist in the vast majority of television shows. Even the news is required to provide largely non-biased coverage. And without it, a lot of people would not be informed of the events in the world; specifically those of the older generation. C2.] Pro is also to show how the television affects the way people conduct their lives. People generally base their lives on what they have in it, not what appears on television. For example, watching a cookery program will have very little influence on what the viewer does or doesn't do in their life or what their political views are. Again, the purpose is primarily to provide entertainment. C3.] Perhaps the most outlandish claim of Pros is that the television [as dynamic as it is] leads to patriotism--especially as most of the programs you see are once more, purely for entertainment. Television from around the world is also shown in the majority of countries, for example, in the U.K you'll most likely see programs from the U.S, and vice-versa. Australian programs also receive airtime in the U.K, and people from Europe additionally get to see British T.V shows if they want. There is virtually no evidence to show that any kind of television leads to or causes patriotism. C4.] Another assertion of Pros is that people can die for no reason as a result of watching television, this claim in itself doesn't require too much attention from me due to the sheer lack of evidence in support of it. The only thing that television can *possibly* lead to is people being either entertained or not entertained. Dying for no reason because of watching it, is simply out of the question. C5.] Pro argues that "these reasons" are sufficient enough in supporting his resolution, but as I've clearly shown; they are not. For starters the reasons given are without any information or proof to show them as correct, and are merely just claims that are exclusive to Pros personal opinion[s]. Here's a source that supports my case :http://mediasmarts.ca...