Society is getting worse.

1. Manners My opponent is completely contradictory with his statements. He says that I am only using myself and my experiences as an example, but he is only using HIMself and HIS experiences to draw a conclusion. Therefore if my argument doesn't hold any weight, than his shouldn't either. It's like I've been saying - yes, there are some rude people in today's world. However there are a lot of polite people as well. My opponent provided no proof other than his own experiences to explain the rudeness of today's society. Likewise, I have given examples of common courtesy and respect in today's society, but I acknowledge that there are some terribly rude people out there as well. Therefore the only point that should stand regarding the manners argument is my contention that people are more careful to not blatantly throw around dergoatory terms today, which is true. So a point goes to me here, while no points go to my opponent. 2. Political Correctness/Affirmative Action Again my opponent is offering no facts, but rather his own opinion on what should or should not be PC. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, his feelings do not constitute what is right and wrong. It was not our forefather's intention to allow us to say Merry Christmas to each other -- that argument is a clearly manipulated interpretation of the separation of Church and State. Rather PC terms exist as an alternative to offensive language, i. e. referring to someone as homosexual or gay rather than a f@g. Further, my opponent is clearly not aware that the PC term for black has shifted from African American BACK to black, even though in his very own example he mentioned his black friend preferred to be called black (hence the change). His attempt at making me look foolish is quite ironic considering that he is the one behind on the times. And finally, my opponent's argument regarding Affirmative Action holds no water. First, most places do not employ the AA policy. In fact, on most job applications or other admission processes, a company will note that a decision will NOT be made based on race, gender, etc. So for all of the places that DO use AA, an equal number of places (or more) do not adhere to the policy. Second, while AA does exist, racism also still exists. At one place a person may get hired because they're black; at another, they may NOT get hired BECAUSE they are black. So in a sense, they cancel each other out. Either way, this argument is void. 3. Censorship Again this is an argument that can be looked at 2 ways. To my opponent, society is going downhill because of decreasing censorship in the media. To others, "Censorship always protects and perpetuates every horror of the prevailing forms of oppression. With us, its subtle disguises increase its evils by creating delusions of safety, liberty and democracy. It precludes that intelligence which is necessary to hasten wholesome and natural social evolution" -- Theodore Schroeder. So think of it this way: not censoring the media comes with the horror of exposing children to the foul language they hear all the time growing up anyway. The dangers of censorship, however, include oppression and tyranny. So don't fret, littlelacroix - a young'n might hear the word bit Oh, and about 9/11, the increasing racial segregation in this country is only a result of the Bush Administration's use of fear mongering. Once a Democrat is back in the White House and the so-called War on Terrorism (a. k. a. let's discriminate against Arab Americans) is over, we can only assume that society will continue on the accepting and progressive track that it was on before. 4. Entertainment So what does my opponent have to say about all this? Well we know that he doesn't like the show Survivor. That's cool - he's entitled to his opinion. However what he considers mindless does not mean that others don't enjoy it for whatever reason. For instance think of a sport - any sport - but I'll use golf as an example. Well in actuality golf is a game that revolves around hitting a tiny ball as far as you can towards a tiny hole in the distance, and then walking up to the ball and hitting it away from you again. This to me seems pretty mindless. Yet millions of people enjoy the game; Hell, it even became a professional sport - one that is played and celebrated by even the most intelligent individuals. So mindless? Maybe. But what does that have to do with anything? Next I'll address my opponent's other points regarding television. He points out that a mother could let her children watch Sponge Bob when she "doesn't want to deal with them" however he pointed out possible alternatives like The Magic School Bus and other PBS programming. Well great! That just proves my point that there is a variety of educational TV that one can watch, children-related or otherwise. Regarding movies, Pro completely contradicts himself. "In 20 years, there will be hundreds of new movie releases and 90% of them are pretty much the same movie as movies created before. " He says this after acknowleding that people's taste in movies change and therefore new kinds of movies emerge. However by that logic, then in 20 years from now NEW movie themes and plots will emerge also (just as movies have shifted from 20 years prior to now). He also deems stars like DiCaprio and Depp to be "too old" to be considered great actors of our day (Bull. Wikipedia notes that his very own example of Bob Newhart was the most popular between 1972 and 1978, when he was nearly 50 years old - much older than Depp and DiCaprio, but I digress). In that case consider Ellen Page (21) who was nominated for an Oscar this past year, Haley Joel Osment (nominated for an Academy Award at age 11), or Adrian Brody, who was the youngest man to win an Oscar in 2003. My point is that good actors come and go, and good directors/writers come and go, thus good movies will always come and go. Plus - my opponent didn't touch upon it - but I believe I have included all of the reasons in rounds prior as to why movies are getting better (creativity, technology, etc. ). 5. Technology Again my opponent assumes that dependance on technology = laziness. Uh, WRONG. People rely on technology for a lot of reasons, including but not limited to: production of goods (faster, easier, safer and cheaper); fast, global communication (telephones, cell phones, e-mail, etc. ); medical advancements (which my opponent did not address at all, but include monumental things such as corrective surgery, implementation of artificial limbs, organ transplants, etc. ); entertainment and the economy (gadgets are lucrative). Next my opponent notes the things you "couldn't do before technology" including be exposed to a lot of porn instantly (where's the harm in that, anyway? ), or facilitate obesity via television. However the list of things you CAN do *because* of technology is greatly longer than the list of things you COULDN'T. Besides, the positives far outweigh the negatives, even in this debate alone. Consider my examples from the previous paragraph. After admitting society seeks constant improvement, Pro writes, " mankind is even seeking perfection in evil . .. These went un-argued by my opponent because he agrees that we are truly perfecting evil. " Uh, no. This went unargued because it wasn't addressed before. Anyway, in this paragraph my opponent contests that things like cheating on tests and blackmail have not existed before the invention of things like digital cameras. Give me a break. 6.