'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

Thank you for the summary of your argument, you've made an abundance of credible points throughout the endurance of this debate. Unfortunately however, you've made the final part of this debate very easy for me as you've made identical points to the ones you've dragged through the previous rounds of this argument. "The North Korean government is substantially more offensive than the film portraying it." You've missed my point completely. Just because North Korea are a troubled country does not in any way excuse the exception for the USA to allow the production of a film that depicts the assassination of their leader. Two wrongs do not make a right, especially if the 'right' isn't a remedy to the ordeals created by the entity who committed the wrongs. The film in no way aids the world in its conquest for peace and therefore doesn't deserve an existence on this planet. What gives anyone the right to produce a film with the purpose of escalating an already serious situation between two countries and generate an absurd amount of revenue while doing so? Nobody, is the correct answer. "You go on to conflate the actions of the U.S. government and Sony as if they were in the same league. Note that Sony does not represent the American government." Again, you've twisted my words. I never once stated that the government of the USA were in strong association with Sony, but I made it clear that the two are certainly in bed with each other. Barack Obama gave a live speech (http://bit.ly...) preaching that the film should be released and that alone shows the support of the United States government for the movie and it's inevitable effects on North Korea. The government also have absolute control over any media are released to the public and did nothing but support the publishing of the film, despite the fact that they UNDENIABLY knew that North Korea would threaten SERIOUS countermeasures against the United States and its people. "Why are you only having a go at Sony about DPRK? How about DICE for developing Battlefield where you fight and destroy the Chinese and the Russians? How about James Bond movies and books for portraying Russia as the perpetual bad guy (set during the Cold War, an era of paranoia about Russia and the East, in the same way that we now live in fear of NK?). Why not chastise the producers of Tropic Thunder for the production of an anti-Viet Kong film?" This is loquacious garbage . The Battlefield franchise allows the player to fight on the side of all three factions and the James Bond films are based on fictional characters and don't primarily circulate around the particular theme of destroying a REAL LIFE faction or person whereas 'The Interview' is specifically concentrated around the murder of a REAL living person in North Korea. The film is explicit in reaching out to North Korea and igniting anger among Kim Jong Un and his people and Sony and the US government were aware of this from the beginning. "- Again, you bring up revenge. Revenge is not a feature, theme nor motif of the film, nor my any of my arguments." This is precisely your argument. You believe that 'The Interview' should sustain its release because it fights back at North Korea for all of the horrific crimes they've committed in the past. The movie fulfills this immaculately and that's the problem, it hasn't sparked any form of positive revolution across the United States, North Korea or any other region of the world, it has just gouged a deeper cut into the bleeding body of issues between North Korea and the Western world. "Your case is patently absurd. Should we not tell the church to stop raping children to avoid stepping on toes? Were we egregiously insulting Hitler by telling him that the slaughter of millions of people and bringing the planet's resources to its knees was immoral? Should we abstain from upsetting the feelings of people like Mussolini, Stalin, bin Laden, Gaddafi?" Once again, you have only briefly dunked your toe into the lake of points and arguments I've made and then retracted it with a mild moan of stupidity throughout this debate. Of course we should reach out to the world for support in solving the problems in North Korea and end the tyranny of the Kim reign and its war-hungry generals, but 'The Interview' is in no way a catalyst for that. Did we make a comedy ridiculing the life of Bin Laden in order to force him to turn himself in with a bright red face of embarrassment? Did the comical cartoons illustrated in British newspapers during the 1940s lead to the surrender of the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis in the second world war? The only methods of solving a problem similar to this is either by utilising brute force or reasoning - 'The Interview' fits none of these categories of resolution and only serves to make the problem more perilious than before the film was created. We need to stop the malicious North Korean agenda, but 'The Interview' only puts the people of the United States and associated countries in danger. In fact, the making of this film is probably the most ineffective and ogreish way of solving the problem in North Korea. "Where we are told that we should forfeit our rights and freedoms in the face of violence, that is the time for defence, for intervention, for speaking louder and shouting longer. It is the time not to cower behind a wall of political correctness but to make the atmosphere burn the colour of resistance. Where we model robust and steadfast morality in the face of threats of intimidation and force, we must remain resolute and united. That is why the movie is important, regardless of the quality of the jokes or the specifics of the content." This a very intricately inspiring paragraph that points to no where but the fire exit of this debate. That's right, you just set your entire argument on fire with this one. You speak as if the USA have been attacked and that we need to defend ourselves, when in fact, it is the USA that have attacked North Korea by enabling the publishing of this film. The world requires a unification against North Korea's crimes, but as I've so explicitly declared throughout this debate, 'The Interview' does not solve the issues at hand, but only makes them more futile. 'The Interview' does not make us "resolute and united" and it certainly does not "burn the colour of resistance", but well done for trying out the sesquipedalian phrases, Mr. Chaplin. "A movie is a movie, and this one may be seen as offensive to the NK government. That's too bad." You're speaking about the movie as if it serves some vital purpose and that's it's unlucky that North Korea took offense to the film. That the offence and ridicule of North Korea was an unfortunate sacrifice that had to be made in order to fulfill the movies crucial goal. The offence of North Korea was the goal of this movie. To allow the oblivious civilians of the Western world to laugh and indulge in a movie that draws a blanket of comedy and ridicule over North Korea. "The actions that they threaten as a result should not shunt the West into a position of kneeling prostration. It's time for the government of the DPRK to grow up." The film should never have even been thought up in the first place and should certainly not have reached the speculation of the media and media viewers/readers. Perhaps it's too late to ban this film because North Korea have already vowed to take serious action against the United States, but in the unlikely event that 'The Interview' is banned, it would display a lot of dexterity towards North Korea and the rest of the planet, opening up an opportunity for reunification between the USA and its enemies. North Korea and the USA both need to mature as nations on this Earth, both have created this issue as much each other but the USA have escalated the conflict between even further with the release of this film. My brief conclusion can be found here: http://shrib.com...