This house believes that the media should not televise real extreme violence

The third round Con will prepare major rebuttals and additional arguments because given these three rounds will take place in the next two hours, Con will not have sufficient time to challenge round two"s arguments until round three. First, a quick distillation of PRO"s argument: the media is ubiquitous, dominates are lives, therefore "should not televise real extreme violence. " If the time were set for standard debates, Con would attempt to refute the psychological underpinnings of this argument because there is little scientific evidence to link violence as portrayed on television and larger moral decline or social decline in general. Given there is 60 minutes to make an argument, Con will appeal through basic reasoning and straightforward logic. Let us go back to the earlier known remnants of literature: 2,000 BC and the "media" or poem in question is the epic of Gilgamesh. The first section begins Gilgamesh, king of Uruk and is a gladiator, pure testosterone, restless. Gilgamesh keeps the men awake at all hours on alert to erect a wall, while he ravages their wives bodies. This is one of the first pieces of world literature and compared to the violence on television it makes a compilation of the wildest battles on Game of Thrones look rather tame. Someone in the Mesopotamian region found this epic tale worth the arduous tasks of molding clay-like substance, waiting for it to harden in sun, and then etching with some rudimentary tool the epic story of Gilgamesh. Con simply wants to point out that violence has been integral to human civilization, often bringing out the worst, but often to achieve something noble and good. This is merely context worth taking into account. However, let Con transition to two other points: first, the impossibility of controlling extreme violence or extreme sexual acts given the global nature of communications. Television is broadcast on the internet, through every kind of legal and illegal streaming service, and so on. Even in Iran or China, someone or some service will come along almost instantaneously invent a way to circumvent any forms of censorship. North Korea, the extreme example, but most successful regime concerning restricting access to the outside world still fails. People in South Korea and dissident groups smuggle through various mean media into the country. Given the basic realities that govern modern communications it is unrealistic"outside some kind of The Walking Dead situation that any government or agency in the world has the resources to manage redacting or preventing access to extreme violence. So far, Con has provided context and background for violence and the way that television operates in a global society. But Con wants to rebut a point made in Pro"s opening remarks, specifically the first paragraph. Pro makes an emotional appeal and says that many people are influenced by the media"fragile individuals who may be influenced to replicate scenes or acts of violence they watch on television. As an adult male who rents an apartment and has no intention of becoming a parent or even finding the idea remotely appealing, I speak for myself as well as many others who simply do not care about protecting children and adolescence from violence on television. Is that not the very dilemma parents face every day; protecting children and vulnerable individuals from the vice and danger that permeates everyday reality? If these basic functions are neglected, then the problem is not on television or any visual alternative reality but somewhere else. Finally, Pro mentions the media should not show extreme violence but false to provide specific example from television. In the next round, for clarity please provide two or three specific example of extreme violence on television because right now your argument is simply a subjective understanding they may correspond little to my understanding or other people"s understanding of extreme violence. While this is a generalization about television viewers in the United States, it is fair to state several million"teenagers, adults, middle-aged adults, and elderly adults enjoy watching extreme forms of violence on television. Take for instance arguable the best and most watched television series on the planet: Game of Thrones. Millions love it, I personally love it, and I cannot think of any justification for denying HBO from distributing this series on television, whether on an actual television or IPad or IPhone. Moreover, the best television series of the last decade and today are violent dramas: The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad"or to be concise, every television program on HBO and SHOWTIME every made. Last quick point: Pro forfeited the second round; however I hope the third round will provide the opportunity for a real debate. Good Luck.