Islamic advertisements on the television.

Note: PRO and I obviously have differing views of misconduct. This debate is about whether this idyllic idea SHOULD be put into action, not whether it can be put into action or whether it should be America's number one top priority. No, this debate is about whether or not we should put tolerance-inducing, Islamic advertisements on television. I never said anything about priority, this is about practicality. I agree that spreading tolerance to everyone is an idyllic goal we should work toward, but that is not part of the resolution. The resolution explicitly states: "Islamic advertisements on the television." I don't know where you are going with this, but this holds little or no relevance whatsoever. The problem with PRO is his complete lack of understanding of the word, 'should' Should, by definition, implicates necessity. This means that, for something to be sufficiently categorized under this word, it must have a compelling degree of necessity. This leads to the following question: What determines necessity? I made two approaches to this question. The first approach outlined in round 1 was generic. I simply took the costs of the proposition (monetary cost, opportunity cost, etc.) and weighed it with the benefits. The sacrifice necessary to achieving the goal of removing intolerance in America does not outweigh the costs. There are simply better alternatives and the proposition therefore should not be implemented. To drive this nail home, let me provide a more extreme example to show how this line of logic works: -Most of us want to attain world peace and fix our progressing environmental destruction -Option: remove the human race -Cost >Benefit First off, this is exactly what PRO does. He presents a positive goal, tolerance, but limits our option to TV ads. Second: As you can see, this is judgment is subjectively made; others can say benefit > cost and who's to argue that? It all boils down to our personal world perspectives (your opinion!!). This connects to my second approach: there is no objectivity, therefore nothing can be a necessity. My opponent's response to the second approach is an appeal to humanity's evolutionary instincts of survival and reproduction. The problem: Why is that important in an objective sense? It is only important to us because we personally want to survive and be happy, but in the grander scheme (if there is one), it doesn't matter. Everything lives, everything dies. As long as all of existence continues moving along the fulcrum of time, everything that we see right now, the stars, the sun, the moon, the earth, etc. will eventually disappear. What is humanity but an insubstantial speck when compared to infinity? Nothing is important. You die, who cares? Humanity does because humanity thinks its own personal subjective desires to survive and reproduce are important for some odd reason. They are not. Try as you might, you cannot prove humanity's necessary existence. Please refer to the 'chain' in round 1 if you are still confused. It can't get any clearer. In response to my blurb questioning the capabilities of the TV ad method ("do you really think 30 seconds of promotional advertisements would be able to reverse that?"), PRO provides possible messages for these ads: "Healthy Muslims - Putting the slim back into Muslim! Muslims with good singing voices - Putting the la back into Allah! Muslims who eat healthy foods - Putting the muesli back into Muslim!" Does PRO really think cheesy slogans will remove years of ingrained racism? If an ad appears stating that the world is flat, would you suddenly take up that notion despite the overwhelming contrary evidence? Maybe, but most probably not. Pro fails to prove that the medium (TV) suggested is capable of achieving the goal of tolerance. Internet in the US: 50 years ago there was no internet, everyone either went outside to play or watched TV instead. Internet has now been added to the list. According to internetworldstats.com the number of internet users in the world totals 7,017,846,922 [1]. This is nearly the entire human population! If you think this doesn't deduct from world TV viewership, then you should do something very extreme that pertains to self deprecation. "All of these things would make radical racists tolerant of Muslims, who I know from personal experience are good people, not yelling crazy people who blow things up." Wrong: Pro only thinks that these would be sufficient in achieving the goal of tolerance. Super-awesome-fun semantics aside, CON's points firmly negate PRO's premises. There is no reason to place Islamic ads on TV and never will be. Postscript: I like the way you mention Americans in derogatory terms. It shows your own prejudice of US and makes this debate slightly ironic. A proponent of tolerance shows intolerance of intolerant people. Ermagawd, I'm calling you a hypocrite! [1] http://www.internetworldstats.com...