People Should Be Allowed to Have Cell Phones in Public Movie Theaters

Topic: People Should Be Allowed to Have Cell Phones in Public Movie Theaters Throughout my case, I use simple logic to identify the problems caused by cell phones and how they can be addressed. First, within the topic itself, key words must be defined before proceeding. Every word below is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. Because my opponent provided no definitions of key words within this debate, we must look towards my definitions and how they accurately apply to the debate. [1]People - "In emphatic use: human beings, as opposed to animals, spirits, etc." [1]Should - "An utterance of the word should. Also, what ‘should be'." [1]Allowed - "Permitted by authority, licensed." Observation: Were debating whether a person should be allowed to have a cell phone in a movie theater or not. Anything else brought up is going off topic and must not be weighted in today's debate. I will use two contentions and then address my opponents case, and move on to discuss key issues in today's debate. My opponent also bases his his case off of the idea that people will be sitting directly next to each other, however, everyone following this debate has been to a movie where there has been many empty seats around that person. Contention 1: All problems created by the cell phone can be easily maintained. Sub Point A: Noise factor created by the cell phone. - Different things apply to this sub point, such as answering the call and talking which creates noise, and a cell phones ringer going off causes noise. First off, answering the call does not need to happen in affirmative world. [2] A study shown by the Pew Research Center showed that more then 72% of phone users send and receive text messages. When looking at this statistic, many calls that occur in movie theaters can be addressed with a simple text back, causing no distraction towards other individuals. Now lets address the cell phone ringer going off. Simply, the individual can put the phone on vibrate or silence, causing no distraction. Sub Point B: The brightness will bother the individual. Cell phone companies today have already addressed this issue to the its full potential. Different phones, even iPhones, have the ability to be put on a very low brightness and extremely dim settings. Because of this, this extreme blinding light coming from cell phones is removed, and in turn, replaced with a dim, non-irritating light source. Contention 2: People who work in movie theaters have the ability to remove someone from the movie theater if they choose to be a distraction to others. I provide an analogy for this sub point and again use common logic. When someone tries to sneak into a movie theater and they are caught, they are removed from it for a certain amount of time. Individuals can go to the manager to discuss the issue, the manager can then discuss with others if this was a problem to them, and can remove them easily. In the affirmation world, this option exists but people choose to ignore it, which is not the affirmative worlds fault. Moving on to and address my opponents case. His first contention says cell phones create noise and encourage talking. However, I have shown simply that all those noise problems can be logically solved. Also, what is considered "distracting" or "annoying" to an individual? His first contention is based on a subjective view point, saying that every person is distracted by these things. However, if this was true, then the cell phones would of been banned a long time ago. But because of certain mechanisms within phones themselves, we can remove all distractions. His second contention says cell phones create distracting white glares. Again, under my second sub point, with a few clicks of a button, we can eliminate this problem. If its a continuous distraction, there are always people who work there to deal with issues of the sort. [1] www.oed.com/ [2] http://pewinternet.org...