Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children (continued).

I also thank her for pointing out her intentions in writing such statements. I shall review each of her points. "'Children see Happy Tree Friends characters as role models, not as characters that children learn from the mistakes of, as my opponent stated. ' I didn't state that children learn from the mistakes of the characters, I said that children learn from the mistakes of the quality of the cartoons. Not once in ANY of my speeches for this debate did I mention the characters, or even use the word ‘characters' [1]! If my opponent misunderstood my argument, what else do you think he misunderstood? " The word "characters" is implied. After all, they are the actions of the CHARACTERSthat children will either avoid or follow. As Randall Munroe of XKCD puts it bluntly, "communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness. " [1] "My opponent has stated several articles that prove that violent cartoons do, in fact, affect children's minds. But audience; do they apply to children 11 and over? Honestly, these statistics may affect the way a 5 year old thinks about violence, but most 11 year olds? " Sure, the first source [2] focused on preschool-age children, but the third [3] did not focus on any age in particular, and the second [4] focused on two young men who played the violent video game Doom, of ages EIGHTEEN and SEVENTEEN. An article by CNN focuses on a study conducted on students 9 to 15, all of which showed increased aggression. [4] This is enough to make it clear that violent visuals do affect children's minds. "'Russia, a country in which thousands of people die of domestic violence, has banned Happy Tree Friends for its brutality and violence. ' So? The rest of the world hasn't. " Perhaps Russia is first. The northwestern United States abolished slavery before the rest of the country did. Just because one country took the first step does not mean that rest of the world cannot feel the same. " Fast food is not Happy Tree Friends. Following my opponent's method of analogy, I could compare drinking to eating, since both are good in some ways, and bad in others. So yeah. Still following my opponent's method, I can hereby supply the facts that since I can. .. well. .. drink drinks, I can drink food, too! Yeah, that's right. Because they're both similar, anything that applies to one applies to the other. Nope. That's not the way analogies work. Yes, both fast food and Happy Tree Friends have their Pros and Cons, but the analogy is irrelevant, the source is irrelevant, the idea is irrelevant. " My opponent still does not appear to understand. The analogy has fulfilled its purpose, and only that, which was to compare two correlating pairs of facts. That is, "fast food makes people happy" with "HTF makes people happy" and "fast food makes people unhealthy" with "HTF makes people aggressive". I am not comparing two facts and making wild extrapolations. I am TYING TWO PAIRS OF FACTS TOGETHER. As the analogy has served its purpose, all points of irrelevancy are irrelevant. "Clearly, she didn't read the sentence, 'While it's not likely that children will act so extremely, such hostile, violent behavior will still be embedded in children's minds [7]. '" Did I insinuate that children are going to mimic what they see on screen? Or did I insinuate that what they see they will remember, but it will not affect them negatively? If my opponent is leaping to conclusions, what other conclusions do you think he's leapt to? " I am male, and am basing my point off of her rhetoric question, "what kind of kid is going to get crazy and start murdering everyone with a cake-slicer like that? " That's an example of mimicking what's on the screen. So is doing something "like that". "'What not to do. There are many things that one should not do. However, children will not learn from the Happy Tree Friends characters' mistakes. Why? Because children see them as role models. ' Children of what age? 2? The ones that shouldn't be watching, and don't? " Anyone, of any age, can have a role model. Did I not mention the Simpsons as one of the cartoons whose characters people see as role models? Children between 12 and 17 make up a large number of viewers of the Simpsons, not two-year-olds. "Any book, television show, movie, business, company, etc. will generate revenue for its employees. Audience, right now we are in an economic crisis, and we need jobs and money to be put out there for those who need it [5]. You and I both know that "Happy Tree Friends" falls into those categories. Whether the episodes are good or not, "Happy Tree Friends" does its share to help the economy like every other product out there. " This, indeed, is true. And while my opponent may say it does not affect the children, do not most people have children to take care of, children who need to be supported? " Mondo Media, the company behind Happy Tree Friends, is estimated to earn "an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million. " It "employs a staff of approximately 5 to 9. " So Mondo Media doesn't directly provide a whole lot of jobs, and doesn't earn a whole lot for a company. Sure, it indirectly provides money and jobs for children all across the world, but is it really very much? This is a negligible gain compared the the many potential losses that can be caused by Happy Tree Friends. I have refuted every point and refutation of my opponent. Thank you, Qynze, the audience, and everybody else. [1] . http://xkcd.com... [2] . http://dailyuw.com... [3] . http://www.aacap.org... [4] . http://www.trutv.com... [5] . http://articles.cnn.com... [6] . http://www.museum.tv... [7] . http://www.econlib.org... [8] . http://articles.sfgate.com... [9] . http://www.manta.com...