RESOLVED: Television has had more positive effects than negative

OVERVIEW: HOW THIS DEBATE SHOULD BE JUDGED This debate is fundamentally comparative: the judge is to compare the positive effects of TV with the negative effects and see which side outweighs the other. What this means is that neither side has to show there are ONLY positive or ONLY negative effects, but that there is an imbalance. When Pro says "you wouldn't say cars are bad because of X" he is leaving out the implied comparison to economic and quality of life advantage that cars offer. What this round calls for is a comparison of the advantages claimed by Pro vs. the disadvantages claimed by Con. When weighing the advantages or disadvantages, the two main things the judge should consider are "how big is this advantage" and "how likely/certain is this advantage." PUBLIC HEALTH a)Pro offers no evidence against my claim that television directly causes 528,000 premature deaths each year. I have a cited Harvard study to support this claim. b)It is incredibly unfair for Pro to say "the solution is simply. Privatize healthcare completely." This debate is about the effects TV has as our society currently exists, not the effects TV has in some utopia of Pro's creation. Healthcare isn't completely privatized, so the healthcare costs of TV do spread to taxpayer. c)Diabetes and Cardio problems amount to an economic concern for more reasons than healthcare costs. The American Diabetes Association states for annual cost of diabetes there is "$58 billion for indirect costs (disability, work loss, premature mortality)." d)This disadvantage is the most certain thing in this round. It is supported by an incredibly comprehensive study: "…a meta-analysis, a systematic assessment of all published studies from 1970 to 2011 that linked TV viewing with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. Eight large prospective cohort studies from the United States, Europe, and Australia met the researchers' criteria and were included in the meta-analysis." Pro has not contradicted my claims with any evidence. The certainty of over 500,000 people currently dying each year should be at the front of your mind when considering any of Pro's claimed advantages. DISENGAGEMENT a)In the absence of TV, news is still spread via internet, radio and newspaper (all of which are just as international as TV). Pro provides no reason why these would be less effective at spreading information about OWS or the Tea Party or any other news story. b)Note that my arguments for disengagement are specific to TV. My cynicism evidence states that TV creates cynicism while press (newsprint) does NOT. Compassion fatigue is the result of the continuous bombardment of disaster images. As Pro claims in his opening, TV is different in that it offers you "minute by minute information as to the status of the emergency," and "people are given access to breaking news within hours or even minutes of the event happening." It is precisely this constant, immediate subjection to disaster during TV news that results in compassion fatigue. The immersive nature of TV news drains the willingness to act in a way that print or radio does not. c)Double bind – either Pro admits that TV news offers nothing special compared to print/radio and loses his advantages, or he admits that TV presents news in a fundamentally different way and links to my disaster fatigue claims. d)Research on declining engagement also points to TV as the culprit. The Research also says the reading print news INCREASES engagement: (LA Times "Critics of Media" 1996) "Robert Putnam, a political scientist at Harvard University, devoted a dozen pages to examining the possible causes of what he calls "the decline of our civic life." He concludes: "Television is the culprit." Putnam argues that "each hour spent viewing television is associated with less social trust . . . while each hour reading a newspaper is associated with more." Although Putnam's widely discussed research focused on the disengagement of increasing numbers of Americans from various civic and social activities and organizations, he also examined the impact of television viewing on peoples' feelings about one another and about their civic institutions. "An impressive body of literature suggests that heavy watchers of TV are unusually skeptical about the benevolence of other people."" e) Disengagement is the biggest disadvantage in this round. So much of society depends on a thriving democracy- the healthcare industry, the police force, the economy, the ability to respond to disasters. As a democracy sickens, all areas of society sicken with it- resulting in corruption in government at all levels and resulting in drops of quality of life. You only need to look to healthcare crisis, to the Occupy Wallstreet Movement, to the corruption in Washington and state politics, to see the ill effects of a democracy in trouble. DISASTERS a)Pro's argument about how TV helps us deal with disasters is "television gives viewers a better visualization of what is happening." Even if this is true, what does this actually mean for our ability to respond to disasters? How does "better visualizing" a wildfire happening 2000 miles away help solve the problem? How much of a difference does it make? Will that wildfire kill 5 less people? Will it destroy 1 less home? Pro offers no answers to these questions. In the face of over 500,000 deaths each year due to TV related health concerns, the possibility that TV might marginally help us with natural disasters in some ambiguous way seems a laughable merit. b)My disengagement claim totally captures the disaster solvency. Without TV we would have a more engaged citizenry and a healthier democracy. We would have stronger public institutions like FEMA, fire departments, forest rangers, to respond to these disasters. We would also have stronger volunteer organizations such as Americorps and Citizens Corps- organizations that exist to train first responders and actually go out and react to disasters rather than having a better visualization from sitting in front of the TV. EDUCATION a)My opponent never refuted my claim that TV is detrimental to education of children under two. Additionally, he has proved zero evidence that TV helps education in children over two. This means the only standing empirical studies in this round suggest that TV is bad for education. b)Pretty much Pro's entire opening education argument is centered on children's programming, explicitly targeted at "toddlers" and "infants" – the exact demographic my evidence shows TV hurts. c)Saying this isn't a negative effect of TV, it's a bad effect of parenting is unfair. Again, we are arguing about TV in society as is, not in some world where Pro gets to decide how things should be. In the real world, parents let their infants watch TV, and the TV hurts their cognitive development. ALSO: These types of arguments are unfair since you could make any change to the world to remove a problem- e.g.: TV causes cancer? Well this wouldn't be an issue if we cured cancer so it isn't TV's fault! d)Pro keeps claiming that educational programming on TV is a benefit, but at the most this educational programming is a tiny portion of what people watch. The top rated syndicated TV shows are Judge Judy, Two and a Half Men, and Wheel of Fortune. Even on "educational" channels, that majority of programming is focused on cheap interest shows- for example "Pawn Stars" and the series of knock offs it inspired on the History Channel. The odds of turning on the TV at random and finding something truly educational are laughable compared to the odds of picking a book at random. The educational impact of so called "educational TV shows" is miniscule compared to the other disadvantages in this debate.