It's time to apply positive discrimination to the entertainment industry

I shall begin. As the name implies, the entertainment industry is there to supply us humans with, well, entertainment. From our favorite Friday night program to Mom's favorite musical to our brother's favorite band, the entertainment industry supplies it all. In many ways, we are personally indebted to the people who make those tough decisions that decide whether or not a television show stays, or our band is kept with a record label, or a show will debut on stage again. Without the people to make those tough decisions, where would our entertainment be? So why should we take those making the decisions away from their position and replace them with another person when the there is no need for it. We all know that there are gays and women in the entertainment industry, we can't deny that, but should they be taken out of a position of power just because we don't like the decisions they are making about what shows to air on T. V. and how a movie should be rated and switched with a straight man so they can represent the "straight entertainment"? Of course not! If someone has worked their entire life to get to the position they are in and earned everything they have, should they be simply switched out because we don't have enough "straight" shows? No! It is for this reason that I stand in opposition of the resolution. I would like to start off by clarifying the terms used within the resolution: Apply: to bring into action. Positive: emphasizing what is laudable, hopeful, or to the good; constructive. Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Entertainment Industry: those involved in providing entertainment: radio and television and films and theater. (For clarification on Entertainment Industry, go to . http://en.wikipedia.org...) All definitions from www. dictionary. com My opponent starts the debate by claiming that "most people who work in television and the theatre are either women or gay men" without supplying a single source or statistic to prove what he said. Unless one can be supplied, than this comment should go without consideration in this debate (which would negate all his arguments). He then goes to make a blind assertion about male entertainers, and then associates Tom Cruise and John Travolta to gays, when they have no connection whatsoever. My opponent is counting on a persons dislike for aforementioned people to bring the the reader to Pro's side. Cheap trick. For my opponent's second point, he shows no evidence to prove that what he says is true. While it is true that executives make the decisions (. http://filmtvcareers.about.com...), he has failed to prove that gays and women control these decisions. My opponent's third point is solely personal opinion and has no factual basis whatsoever. I personally enjoy musicals whenever I have the chance to see them, even though I'm not a timid old lady, a starry-eyed little girl, or a roaring poof; I also have many friends who are exactly like me in that respect. When it comes to television, executives try to come up with ideas that will draw in certain demographics to their channel, allowing those channels to receive funding from a wider range of companies who are looking to sell their products. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)(For example, if you create a show that is geared towards an older female demographic, and that show is a success, then companies trying to sell products primarily for that demographic will buy adds for that show's time slot, thus giving you more money, which is good. If a show doesn't do well on the T. V. and is not bringing in any viewers, then the television station is not earning any money from advertisers. Simple. ) And Will and Grace was a really successful show, so there is no reason why it should be brought up. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) The fourth point my opponent presents is still missing those key sources to show that what he says is true. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) If you take the time to look at the link I just provided, you will see that these categories are made for both male and female demographics, not just "lazy[,] fat housewives. ." As for the lack of shows about "cars and other forms of transport. .. " I offer this link: (. http://www.speedtv.com...) An entire channel dedicated to "transport". And as I was searching for more information, I came across this link: (. http://dir.yahoo.com...) And again, my opponent claims that "gay male television executives in chage don't personally enjoy those sorts of programmes" without a single source to back his claims up. If he is not able to do this, then how can we believe anything he says? My opponent's final point, in which he states that he stands in affirmation of the resolution, is (again) missing some much need sources to prove that what he is saying is true. As I have said earlier, we all know there are gay men and women in Holliwood, but just because there aren't that many television shows on air that you like doesn't mean that they are taking over and "gaying it up". Also, why should we try and reflect the population in the entertainment industry? It's not politics. As I stated earlier, why should we take someone out of their position of power just because we don't like their decisions? For example: I don't like the fact that the History channel is airing so many religiously based programs on the air, but that doesn't mean that the decision makers in the company need to be switched out, so why should that be done to those who just so happen to be gay?