Disney

Since my opponent didn't explicity state it in the topic or his opening argument, I will assume he is against Disney because of the supposed sexual innuendo founded in several of it's works. This can be verified from his last statement: "DOWN WITH DISNEY!!" =====Counterarguments===== "But if you look on YouTube, you will find numerous videos about Disney and Disney Channel having subliminal messages in their music/products/movies/shows." ----> Because YouTube is always right, huh ;D? >>>The title cover of Little Mermaid has a hidden picture in it<<< Since my opponent didn't give the source about this issue, I will link it [1]. Basically, a close-up examination of the VHS cassette is supposed to showcase a "golden penis". A brief look can easily make out the picture: it looks like a penis. Looks like a big penis. It looks like a golden penis. So Disney must've purposely put it there right? No. 1. Accident - human brain picks up paterns/images Since it's a pure speculation, we don't know whether or not it was an accident. A simple mistake in the drawing can lead to wild images. It's been known that the human brain is susceptible to trickery, and in the context of this debate, it's been known to tend to visualize patterns among things [2]. 2. Fraud Perhaps someone put it there witihout anyone knowing. Or an employee purposely did it to try to sabatoge Disney. The list of possible examples go on and on - how do we know which one is true and which one isn't? 3. Other editions In the following editions, the image is no longer there (due to different covers). So why does it even matter anymore? Basically, simple cases of "possible" and disputed sexual innuendo is little reason to bring down Disney, which I interpret as shutting it down. Disney brings great economic value to society, tons of little kids enjoy the theme park, and they make many movies/shows that don't seem to have this mark of sexual innuendo. Why should all that go away for a possible and not likely sexual innuendo charge? >>>Lion King<<< *Sigh*, I've seen this same argument from dopes like Donald Wildmon. Anyway, the alleged "SEX" is really "SFX"[3], which means special effects. This has been stated as a casual inside signature for the techies at Disney - I mean, heck they made a good*ss movie. Why not let them have an inside signature? But of course, constant complaining of alleged sexual innuendo led to further editions deleting this scene. So why does it matter anymore? >>>Hannah Montana<<< "I think Hannah Montana teaches kids it's ok to walk all over your friends and family as long as you say sorry" ----> What you think isn't necessarily true. My opponent states that Hannnah Montana teaches kids it's okay to shrug off your family and friends as long as you say sorry. Evidently, he hasn't watched many episodes of this show, or perhaps many other shows. The common format for many kids or teengaer sitcoms is to have a flawed main character (and many times minor characters). They will do something bad, and by the end of the 30 minute episode they will learn a valuable lesson. For example, in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air[4] (awesome show, I don't know why they stopped or they didn't get any awards), Will Smith is the main character who is a street-smart kid from West Philadelphia who lives with his rich relatives. Their lifestyle, and clothing style, obviously clash. Will usually does something stupid or bad, and goes through tons of trouble throughout the episode to fix the situation and his relationship with the people involved (which many times involve his relatives). However, always in the end does it involve redemption and somewhat of a "moral lesson". This is a common feauture of MANY sitcoms, and is similar of Hannah Montana. It's my opponent's burden to show that Hannah Montana advocates rudeness and disregard for one's family and friends. =====Conclusion===== I've given explanations for alleged cases of sexual innuendo in the two cited examples by my opponent, and given a brief explanation of the show format that Hannah Montana and many other sitcoms adhere to. There are now two things to note: -Even if Disney did put those images in, why does it matter? It's not there anymore in current editions. Similariy, should we really shut down the entire business just because their animators probably sneaked in a few jokes? People gotta cool down. -Using Occam's Razor, we should trust explanations like "SEX is really SFX, because this is an inside signature techies like to use", rather than "Disney executives are trying to advocate sexual promoscuity among children, for whatever mysterious reason". Think about it, and common sense will evemtually prevail. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1989_film)#Allegations_of_sexual_innuendo 2. http://www.ucgis.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...