RESOLVED: Television has had more positive effects than negative

Here I will give my response to Con's case.Public healthACon's point about the positive correlation between television viewership and disease is lacking in evidence. First, he proves too much. Just because thousands of people die every year in car accidents, does not mean that they have not provided positive benefits so why should it be applied to television only? Second, on his point about healthcare costs, he claims that the economic impact of treating all the people getting sick form television viewership is too much. Of course, he does not prove why this is a bad thing economically speaking. More sick people does mean more people frequenting hospitals and paying for treatment. If he means that these costs are put on the rest of Americans via America's partly socialized healthcare system, then the solution is simply. Privatize healthcare completely. Since hospitals must treat anyone who comes to their doors in danger of dying, taxpayers are forced to pay for treatment of drug users, violent people, and generally irresponsible people as well. The problem in healthcare costs is not due to television viewership, but socialization of costs on to the American public.BOn inaccuracy, this isn't really a problem. Reality shows have long been known not to fully show 'reality' completely as they still have to be able to make the show entertaining and market it to audiences with short attention spans. On pharmaceutical pushing, this is merely an aspect of any sort of media. Whether it be television, newspapers, or radio, they rely on advertisement to stay on the air. The fact that sometimes television shows have inaccurate representations in order to advertise a product is hardly a charge that only those in the television industry deserve.Civil disengagementMy opponent argues that television viewership is antithetical to a flourishing democracy of civic engagement. However, it is through television(among other media outlets) that is able to organize and inform on the issues raging in the political sphere. Take for example, the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement. Without television coverage, many wouldn't see protesting a broken political establishment as productive. But since television media outlets broadcast their message to a now international audience, protesting and just generally taking a stand for one's beliefs is now more effective than ever.On compassion fatigue, this is merely the effect of people now starting to see what is going on around the world, not just in their city or nation. Knowledge is not bad in itself, just what we do with it. Undoubtedly some people will feel depressed and apathetic at the current state of world affairs, but there can be no denying that some will see the same thing and feel a desire to go and help their fellow man.On opportunity trade-offs, my opponent claims that television takes away time from other more important activities such as volunteering. However, can he substantiate the claim that without television, most people would spend half of their leasure time volunteering or doing something else productive? I can simply turn this claim around and argue that watching television detracts time where people could be out committing crimes such as rape or murder. Here I will respond to Con's objections to my own case.News and disastersMy opponent takes issue with the idea that television can give viewers unique information needed to respond to disasters. My argument was that television gives viewers a better visualization of what is happening. Someone who hears a description of the severity of a hurricane might not be as well informed as someone who is watching actual footage of it. He next claims that political disaster response groups are more important in dealing with natural disasters, however I never claimed that television was more important. I was pointing out that it can help not only give people possibly useful information as to the severity of a disaster, but that it serves to give exposure on those conditions to the rest of the world and anyone who may want to voluntarily help or send funds to help a relief effort.EducationCon argues that television hurts the development of children under two years old. However, again, this proves too much. It is not a negative effect on cars in general if children can get hurt driving them. It is a negative effect of bad parents who let their children drive their car. As such, it is not a negative effect of television in general if children respond negatively at a certain age(my opponent has also not done anything to show negative effects on children over two), but a negative effect of irresponsible or ignorant parents. On these channels not being educational, my opponent argues that the History Channel only plays shows about antiques and guns, however it has played a variety of educational documentaries and television shows, including shows on modern technological inventions(Modern Marvels) and documentaries on the work of Nostradamus(The Nostradamus Effect). The Discovery Channel also dedicates an entire week every year to education on sharks specifically(Shark Week) and is the home of the educational show on physics, Mythbusters.