The Jeremy Kyle Show is unethical

I would like to refer to what the pro terms re-rebuttals as counter arguments. If one was to observe the dynamics of his (I now assume you are male) counter arguments they would find that he aims to emotionally appeal to the audience but the logic is very flawed, if not non-existent altogether from the arguments. I could succumb to this and conform the the low standard of debate from my opponent but for now I would prefer to stick to logic and use the debate's definition of unethical against most of my opponent's counter arguments and then shall proceed to conclude why The Jeremy Kyle Show is ethical and by no means is conclusively unethical in any way whatsoever. The first counter argument raised was that of my attack to the debater on the topic of bias. What I had attempted to joke about ended up being taken as a personal offence. I apologize for the misunderstanding but do not feel guilty for pointing out that to say being biased is a means of deeming The Jeremy Kyle Show unethical, the debater is calling himself unethical for he is indeed biased. This is blatant hypocrisy in that they are breaching their own limits on what is ethical and what is not! Perhaps the joke can be understood now. His attack on my argument that in order to advise one must be biased was very poor. He mentions absolute lies such as that Mr. Kyle plays a mediator in individual's lives and seems to assume that he knows Mr. Kyle's ulterior motive is to strip people bare. Firstly Mr. Kyle is not a mediator in people's lives but merely an adviser to them during a tough period in their life. Thus, this is absolute nonsense to state. He does not enter their life and mediate what and what not they do but merely advises them, even offering free help after the show is aired, for longer termed benefits than the advise alone. To claim to know that Mr. Kyle's ulterior motive is to merely strip people bare for what assume is our entertainment. Not only is it a very unfounded assumption to make that one knows that presenter's motives but also this is irrelevant to the ethics of the show since it only refers to the ethics of Jeremy Kyle himself, if my opponent would kindly have read the resolution being discussed he would see we are discussing the ethics of The Jeremy Kyle Show and not Jeremy Kyle. He then proceeds to rant on about how unethical it is for one to ram Tory political views down people's throats and how irrelevant it is to Jeremy Kyle's job that he does so. Again, I would like to point out that we are discussing whether The Jeremy Kyle Show is unethical and not whether Jeremy Kyle is. The rest of his counter argument is all about how unethical Mr. Kyle is and I feel that he totally lost the plot in terms of what he was actually debating about (meaning the show and not the presenter). Regarding Oprah and Dr. Phil, I would like to tell you that it was my attempt to show that other programs where strong opinionated advise is given are considered ethical by masses. Your justification for disregarding them was that they are not 'The Jeremy Kyle Show' and that you would apply the same ethical standard to the presenters if they promulgated their political views in the same fashion as Kyle does. This is extremely irrelevant since we are neither discussing Mr. Kyle's ethics nor any of the other presenters and the example was a very valid one to raise to highlight how other tabloid talk shows are considered ethical. My opponent seems to be under the delusion that, using this debate's definition, something can be both unethical and yet legal. This is a very false statement to make since the definition overtly states that it must not conform to approved standards of social or professional behavior. Simply put, if you break the law you are breaking that standards of social behavior of the nation in which you broke the law thus, in that nation, your act was undoubtedly unethical. Additionally, you made up a story about a girl whom, on the show, is manipulated to vote Conservative. However, you made that situation up and even admitted that it was artificial so how on Earth can this be a grounds to counter my argument regarding the show if the evidence you raise is made up? Aside from those parts of your counter argument, you being discussing the ethics of Mr. Kyle and not the show and I have already stated that this is irrelevant. The counter argument to me highlighting that we are discussing ethics of The Jeremy Kyle Show and not Jeremy Kyle himself was pathetic, if not altogether ineffective. He states that the show is eponymous as it consists only of Jeremy Kyle. The show is actually eponymous because it is named after Jeremy Kyle so the logic there is flawed. He then states that the show and Jeremy Kyle are hardly separable, but whether or not they are closely related doesn't change the fact that the what we are resolving is whether The Jeremy Kyle Show is unethical and not whether or not Jeremy Kyle is unethical. The rest of my opponent's counter argument again attacks Jeremy Kyle and not the show. I would like to state that my opponent called my polygraph rebuttal a feeble attempt at a rebuttal. Not only is this bad debating etiquette but is a lie for what he quoted was not an attempt at a rebuttal , let alone feeble but was in fact a very sound and well thought-out rebuttal that took a lot of time and consideration to form and execute to the highest degree. The polygraph test is not unethical since it is not used against the people nor was even one example given to justify that it had the power to break up marriages or relationships. It was merely used for a general view of nerves and hesitation which would normally appear before a person lies. It has no effect on the guest's legal stance nor their relationship, it just a tool to pull out the truth, perhaps not always accurate but for the purposes of the talk show has never caused dispute, this would be why no examples whatsoever were given to justify either the counter argument or original point. Top gear is a show where very strong opinions are conveyed, in a manner that often can mock not only people but companies, affecting their sale of cars and having a huge impact on any people's lives who work for a company such as Ferrari or Lamborghini. Yet, it is considered ethical by the masses, so clearly tabloid talk shows are both ethical and very opinionated at the same time. In conclusion, The Jeremy Kyle Show is not unethical since it is neither socially nor professionally unacceptable in any of its actions or characteristics. Thus, I would deem the show ethical in every sense.