This house believes that tv(television) has a negative effect on society.

(Cited from the same source.) Before move on to my case, let me give a chance to rebut his argument. I already pointed out his starting part and paragraph #1 in the round 2 by using member comments. And, how can we prove the causation between many correlation like this complicated case? The answer is what I already showed you. I showed you many experiments that are worked from the various view related to prove the topic and effectively diminished the probability other factors have the correlation with 'problems related to tv'. And he almost try to prove 'Tv has no specific harm and there are other factors'. But he lacked the proofs other factors that he mentioned are the upper cause than my factor than me. And he barely prove the positive effect on tv that can really diminish my argument. He only listed few things without proof in round 1. And, if tv has no specific harms in the current situation, why parents stop their kids to watching tv by using RoyLatham's solution? He said it is the problem of the programs, not tv. But if the murderer harm other people, we should only blame his thinking murder? His or her body is innocent from the case? No, We should think he or she itself including both body and mind should charge the responsibility of murder. Likely, how the programs that has negative effects still give much harm to people without tv? The answer is clear. My case has been very clear from the start: tv has a clear, negative effect on society. In my first round, I talked about the presence of sex and violence on tv. I pointed out a number of important facts: there is a noted increase in acts of violence and sex on tv; young people are more vulnerable to these messages; and medical groups, educational institutions, citizens¢¢ç¯ watchdog groups, and even key members of gevernment all cite the dangers of television, and their negative effects on youth. According to Leonard Eron, a senior researcher at the University of Michigan, "Tv alone is responsible for 10% of youth violence." According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a majority of parents say they are "very" concerned about the amount of sex(60%) and violence(53%) their children are exposed to on TV. After being read arguments on both sides of the issue, nearly 2-3rds of parents(63%) say they favor new regulations to limit the amount of sex and violence in TV shows during the early evening hours, when children are most likely to be watching (35% are opposed). All these facts point to a clear problem with televised sex and violence, and this shows that tv has a tremendous negative effect on society. In my second round, I talked about the rampant commercialization on tv, and pointed out the following: more commercial messages are available on television than ever before; young people are just as vulnerable to commercialized messages as they are to sex and violence; and the same experts who warn of sex and violence also warn of the dangers of over-exposure to commercialization and its effects on th perceptions of our youth. According to Worldwatch in 1998, "the evolution of the consumer society has another ramification, a major one. Current consumptive lifestyles in the wealthier nations are enviornmentally unsustainable. The resources required to produce the goods are either non-renewable, or are being used up faster than they can replenish themselves. Waste products are being dumped into the soil, air and water faster than they can be absorbed. The energy fueling this cycle of production and consumption is largely derived from the burning of fossil fuels. The megatons of carbon dioxide waste resulting from this process has led directly to global warming and climate change. The magnitude of the probable effects is appalling, including a rise in sea level, reduction in biodiversity, and more severe floods, droughts and storms. It seems ironic that, in light of this knowledge, that the world automobile is the single largest advertised commodity, must bear some of the responsibility for that." A study by Gerbner finds that "Violence on tv is an integral part of a system of global marketing. It dominates an increasing share of the world¢¢ç¯s screens despite its relative lack of popularity in any country. Its consequences go far beyond inciting aggression. The system inhibits the protrayal of diverse dramatic approaches to conflict, depresses independent tv production, deprives viewers of more popular choices, victimizes some and emboldens others heightens general intimidation, and invites repressive postures by politicians that exploit the widespread insecurities the system itself generates." So we can see that commercialization even compounds the damage done by violence, by promoting the export of violent programming. I have been very consistent, and very factual. Tv has a clear, detrimental effect on society. My entire case has shown the negative effects of sex and violence, as well as commercialization. Society cannot continue to let tv destroy its foundation of values and principles. We must let this motion stand.