why should big brother be banned

I will use this round to go through my opponents arguments and while doing so will bring up some of m own. "Big Brother is a reality television series produced by Southern Star and shown on Network Ten. In each series, which lasts for around three months, a number of people (normally fewer than fifteen at any one time) live together full-time in the "Big Brother House", isolated from the outside world but under the continuous gaze of television cameras. " This is a basic description of the television series and need not be argued because it gives my opponent no weight in the round. Use this as a reference as to what we are talking about but not to judge the round. This is the basic resolutional analysis. Any details my opponent brings up relating to the show in later rounds should not be considered. "Well now that is over, Why should this tv show be banned of Australian television because of the following reasons;" I don't really understand this point but will assume my opponent means the show is already over or canceled in which case banning would be unnecessary. Now I will move on to addresing each of my opponents points individually. "Doesn't set the right morals for children" In order to understand this point, the term morality ought be defined. My opponent fails to do so but I will ease his burden. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, "What "morality" is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take "morality" to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. "Morality" has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important. Among those who use "morality" normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. Some of these moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, independent of whether these beings have any characteristics of human beings. Other moral theories claim that morality applies only to rational beings that have what they regard as the essential features of human beings. To claim that "morality" in the normative sense does not have any referent is to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, and results in one form of moral skepticism. Thus, although not widely discussed, what morality is taken to refer to has great significance for moral theories. Dictionary definitions of referring terms are usually just descriptions of the important features of the referents of those terms. Insofar as the referents of a term share the features that account for why that term refers to those referents, the term is not regarded as ambiguous. "Morality" is an ambiguous term. What "morality" refers to when used in the descriptive sense does not have most of the important features of what "morality" refers to when used in the normative sense. Further, accepting a descriptive definition of morality need have no implications about how a person should behave. Accepting a normative definition of morality commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that he is tempted to perform. Because accepting a normative definition of morality involves this commitment it is not surprising that there are serious disagreements about what normative definition to accept. This means that there are multiple conceptions of morality and that we cannot use one over the other. Since my opponent doesn't take the time to explain what morality is, this argument should be disregarded. Also, the choice of whether or not to watch the show rests upon the children so this bring me to my first argument, my keeping thw show, we are teacvhing children to be accountable for their actions. "Because it is a waste of space" This is completely vague and should not be used as a way to affirm the resolution. Just because something is a waste of space, does not in any way mean it should be banned. Ex. - 1. Sports stadiums around the world take a lot more space than the house in this television series but that doesn't mean it should be banned. 2. Poker tournaments which I would argue are a bad influence to kids, take up more space on television than this show but that doesn't mean that the tournaments should be banned. "Prime Minister wants it banned because of previous action in the house" Reject this argument for two reasons: 1. My opponent does not clarify the previous events so I will assume what the actionsare. In this house, there was a big game of football and a clean tackle led someone to get hurt. The prime ministers wanting of the banning of this show is unjustified. 2. By banning this show, we will be upsetting the balance of powers. If we do everything that a leader wants to do, that is the making of a dictatorship which I would argue is bad. Thus voting for this argument is the same as voting for a dictatorship. In this round, I have successfully shown that the pro advocacy is wrong.