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

Pro is blaming television for having undesirable content when the blame should properly be placed upon society. Pro's logic would blame a river for being polluted and claim that therefore the world would be better without the river. The problem is not the river, it is the people who pollute it. There is no problem at all with television. There is some problem with people putting obnoxious programming on television and with people choosing to watch obnoxious programming, but that is a problem with with society, not with television. Society is the cause, not a victim. If television ceased to exist, all the problems of content would persist with whatever means of communication remained. Pro's errant logic would condemn the Internet, radio, and the printing press in short order, because it applies to them all. As it is, whatever problems that exist with some television programming are grossly exaggerated by Pro. 1. I did not say that TV was essential to spreading information. We know it isn't essential, because information was spread before the advent of television. Information was also disseminated before the invention of radio. I asserted that television was a substantial benefit in disseminating news and information. Images provide valuable information beyond the written word. Audio of a space flight or Olympic games is clearly inferior to a video presentation. Video provides dramatic benefits for educational, entertainment, the arts, and government affairs. I challenge Pro to assert directly that there is no benefit in video presentation, if that is what Pro contends. 2. Pro has given evidence of correlation between television depiction of sex and teenage sexual behavior. Pro seems to insist that correlation proves causation, but it does not. Pro has provided no evidence of causation. The classic example used to show the distinction between correlation and causation is the study that showed a strong correlation (in Chicago, if I recall correctly) between ice cream sales and homicide rates. When there were higher ice cream sales, there were more murders. The correlation is established, but that did not prove that ice cream caused murder or that murder causes ice cream consumption. The common factor was hot weather; ice cream sales and murder rates also rise in the summer. Neither one caused the other. In the case of television depiction of sex and teenage sexual behavior, it is most likely that there is a common cause of both: either poor parenting or a dysfunctional home environment. It might also be that the individuals have a genetic trait that leads to a greater sex drive. It might be some other common factor of which we are not aware. The point is that correlation does not prove that television caused irresponsible sexual behavior. Dr. Fischoff made this same point in the lecture to the American Psychological Association that I cited. Dr. Fischoff, an expert in the field, also stated he knew of no study that established causation. If Pro has a study that demonstrates causation, then Pro should present it. At the very least Pro should spell out the mechanism by which she claims cause and effect to have been established. Pro asked how it would be possible to prevent children from watching X-rated television. One method is for parents to refuse to own a television. In the US, X-rated television is only available by paying extra to subscribe to adult channels. Is there any place in the world where where this is not true? I know of none. In the US, all televisions are required to have a V-chip http://www.fcc.gov... , which allows adults to pass code protect not only X-rated material, but various levels of mature and violent programming. Parents might also keep the set locked up when they are not at home. Children might get access to unmonitored TV outside of the home, but that would eliminate consistent viewing that Pro claims to be the cause of all the ills. Another approach is to tell children not to watch X-rated material. That might seem outrageously ineffective in Western cultures that have deteriorated to the extent they have, but it works in Oriental cultures where children are inclined to do what they are told. (In Japan there are public vending machines that sell beer, and children are simply told not to use them.) The problem, again, is not in the television, it is in the general mores of society. 3. I granted that exposure to violent television causes children to temporarily behave aggressively. If experimenters provided intense exposure, by television, to singing, dancing, running, jumping, or bouncing a ball it's quite likely that for a short while after the exposure the children would be more likely to sing, dance, run, jump, or bounce a ball. That does not suppose that the children so exposed will maintain those activities at a high level for the rest of their lives. In particular, no study has ever shown that the aggressive behavior observed in laboratory experiments ever translates to aggressive behavior in later life. Again, Dr. Fischoff makes the point. In fact, the contention of permanent harm has been disproved. As television, and its presentation of violence increased from the 1950s to 1970s, violence in society increased. that started the notion that television was at fault. But as television continued to become more widespread and more violent after the 70's, social violence decreased. The rise and subsequent fall were were due to the baby-boomer demographics. You people commit more violence than older people. I challenge Pro to address this point directly, and not sidestep it with more claims about laboratory studies. If Pro has a study that shows a casual link, and not just a correlation, I challenge Pro to produce it. 4. Pro correctly claims that advertising is full of challenges for consumers. That's true, but there is nothing special in that regard about television as an advertising medium. Consumers must be alert to deception and over-promising no matter whether ads appear on television, radio, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet. If there were no media, there would still be salesmen pitching snake oil on street corners. The answer is consumer education, and there is no alternative to that answer. With respect to television, the public decides if they (a) want to watch channels whose programs are subsidized by advertising, (b) pay extra for channels without advertising, or (c) not watch television at all. Many people must believe they get a net benefit from watching channels with advertising, because they voluntarily watch them. The benefit is that they get the programming for free, or reduced cost, in return for having the ads on those channels. The same is true for magazines, newspapers, and radio. Any person who does not believe they get a net befit is free not to watch it. Advertising itself provides the benefit of exposing people to products that they might want to buy. Ads for products in which a person has no interest are often annoying. However, ads for a product in which a person is interested are beneficial. An ad for drain cleaner is annoying only until *your* drain becomes clogged, at which point it is a benefit. Yes, I requires some savvy to sort out exaggerated claims, but it's the same skills needed to cope with the direct social interactions with people and the exaggerated claims of politicians, ideologues, and schemers of all stripes. 5. Throughout, Pro portrays parents and society as helpless victims of television. We are to believe that everyone is required to watch endless hours of sex, violence, and dopey ads. In fact, television is what it is because it reflects society. Moreover, there is nothing that prevents any person or family from refusing to own a television or keeping it tuned to channels that reflect their interests. I watch the US Senate on C-SPAN2: no sex, no violence, no ads -- plenty scary nonetheless. The resolutio