EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1530

That there should be a quota on television for locally produced shows

(PRO)
WINNER!
5 points
(CON)
0 points
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai (PRO)
I would like to thank my opponent for beginning this debate. (This is my first debate online, so I am kind of hoping it will be successful)

I would also like to ask my opponent what he/she means when they say the term "quota." The quota can mean the amount or type of shows that are shown on a particular channel, or you could be referring to the amount of the rating given to the particular shows on the channel. I will give an argument as to both, although I will be referring to the first one slightly more. In your next argument, could you please specify on what type of "quota" you are referring to? Thank you.

Think about one of your favorite shows that you have ever seen. Whether it be a Netflix-made show, or one locally produced on a channel, I believe that it is imperative that there be a quota on television for locally produced shows. You might be able to find an even better show if your country had a quota for you to see. If you do not have a favorite show, you also do not have a life. Perhaps, if you do not have a favorite show, then that may be the reason that you have been "con" in this particular argument. First, I will be talking about why the type of shows matter for locally produced shows. Second, I will be talking about the rating given to the particular shows on a channel. Lastly, I will be explaining why there is no doubt that locally produced shows should have a quota.

Have you ever been looking for a really good show for you to watch on the TV, but can't find anything? If so, you may be one of the hundreds of "channel surfers" that are always on the lookout for a good show to watch. Throughout this speech, I will be using "The Walking Dead" as an example. Pretend that you like survival horror, and enjoy a riveting story, and great characters (or maybe you already do, if so, then you already know what I am talking about). However, you haven't found anything good to watch, nor have you ever heard of "The Walking Dead." Looking online and having a quota to see what types of shows are on the local channels would be really helpful right now, but of course, America doesn't have any! Having a quota would revolutionize said "channel surfing," and would also make it a lot easier to see the shows you would like.  

Do you think that you would want to watch a show that only has a rating of one star out of ten stars? I know for sure that I would not like to. This is where the quota comes in. If people give a huge rating for a popular show like the "Walking Dead," more people will definitely hear about it. This will benefit both the channel and the viewer if the quota is at least satisfactory. The channel that shows "The Walking Dead" will get money from more viewers, and the viewer gets quality entertainment. In fact, a popular channel once rejected the show "Mad Men," because they were afraid that it would take time out of their schedule, and would also be disliked by their viewers. However, they were sorely wrong. If they had actually taken the time to see the rating/quota from the viewers, they would have realized that "Mad Men" was an incredibly popular show, and places around #43 around the ranked TV shows in North America. This might seem like it is a relatively bad show (#43 is often not good), but it is remarkably good, with hundreds of shows in the US.

You have asked if we should have a quota for locally produced shows, but the truth is, people are already doing it. According to Toby Mendel, the Head of Law Program, and Ken Bhattacharjee, Legal Officer, their published document of "Local Content Rules in Broadcasting" states that 17 different countries have already begun to use a quota for their local channels, including Canada, a North American country. Not only that, but it is incredibly successful, stating all the types of shows that the entire country broadcasts. It has already proven to be a resource for the people searching for channels.

Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.


Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-16 03:23:32
| Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (CON)

I thank my opponent for his debate with me.

Framework

BoP is on Pro. The debate topic is that there should be a quota on television. My opponent said the definitions, I agree to them most of the part, but I will cite a dictionaries definition.

Definitions

I agree to most of my opponent's definitions. Mine will be here.

Quota: an official limit on the number or amount of people or things that are allowed (1)

locally: with respect to a particular place or situation (2)

produced: to cause (something) to exist or happen : to cause (a particular result or effect) (3)

Rebuttals

I will go on my rebuttals, then my arguments.

1. Think about one of the favorite shows you seen

Pro states that if you don't see a show, you have no life. This is not true. My friend does not watch television at all. For an example like the Percy Jackson series (4), he only reads books. He gets all the things that a TV gets. Your mind does not collapse. 

My favorite show is Running Man (5) which there are 7 members. People might think this is quota, but it is not. There are guests in ever show, that is why it is fun and many people like it because the story of the show changes every single time.

2/3/4. Have you looked in a show, but cannot find anything?

Pro fails to state why this can be changed from quota. He makes an example that walking dead is bad, and says from quota. But it is not. Just give some evidence, then I will rebut it. The argument is not filled, no reason to rebut it.

Arguments

1. Less people, more not fun.

What if there are too little people in a show? This is because of quota, you can't freely pick the amount of things needed. We should change this so there is a freely amount of people in a show.

2. Liberty

People have the right of choice. They want no quota, then they can because they have the right of choice unless it does not harm anyone. (6) Removing quota in TV shows does not harm anyone. People have the liberty of choice, meaning they can hire as many people as they want: because they have the liberty of choice unless it does not harm anyone else.

Over to opponent

Sources

(1). http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quota

(2). http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/locally

(3). http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/produced

(4). http://www.rickriordan.com/

(5.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_Man_(TV_series)

(6). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Thank you.



Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-17 13:47:27
| Speak Round
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai (PRO)
 Thank you for your definitions and your sources about the debate. I would also like to agree with the terms and definitions that you stated.
I would also like to state that you agreed with my definitions "for the most part," although the way that you used my version of quota is very different. How can I create an argument if the sides do not even agree on the definition itself? I am not assigning blame. I am just wondering which type of quota you would like to use: my definition or yours. For my speech, I will be using the ones that you stated for definition agreement. 

Rebuttal

First of all, I would like to make several counter-rebuttals to your argument. First of all, you stated that "Pro states that if you don't see a show, you have no life. This is not true." I would like to make clear that this statement was both a joke and a hook, or an attention grabbing statement. In fact, the entire paragraph within itself  Also, if your 'friend' does not actually watch any shows, then the statement does not necessarily apply to them.

Secondly, you stated that "My favorite show is Running Man (5) which there are 7 members. People might think this is quota, but it is not." How is this quota? I wish to ask my opponent why some people will think that this might be quota. Is the quota that you are referring to talking about the amount of people? After all, quota in locally produced shows is always limiting the type of shows (i.e: comedy or drama, or sometimes the country's productions), though never the amount of people. This eliminates your first reason, because it specifies on the amount of people and guests, though not the type of show. It also raises a question in your second argument. While I understand your reason itself, I would like to quote part of your argument. You said: "People have the liberty of choice, meaning they can hire as many people as they want," which might still refer to the amount of people in a show.

Lastly, you state: "He makes an example that walking dead is bad," although I fail to see when (or why) I have said this in the speech. While merely a minor thing, I would like to specify why you might think this, and correct this. 

Arguments

Because you refuse to give a rebuttal for several of my points due to lack of reasoning, I will now give my reasoning in my arguments. I will also apologize for me not making it more obvious for my opponent. First of all, my "quota" that I mentioned works in the way that a channel surfer can easily find what they are looking for: more popular genres of shows are shown more often, and there is not much of a quota for them. The most popular genre of TV show, which happens to be Reality TV Shows, should be shown more according to its popularity among its viewers. If there was a quota, the most popular genre of TV show would be aired the most, and least popular less often. There will still be unpopular genres that will be shown, although not nearly as often as popular genres.

You also said that people have the liberty to choose what they want to watch. I will still argue against this statement, even though some of your argument was not understood, because it referred to the wrong thing. For you and the judge's convenience, I will state part of it here: "People have the right of choice." You might be saying that if there is a quota, then someone who watches locally produced shows might not be able to watch the shows that they liked. Say that they like to watch weird shows that not many other people like. I will not specify what type of genre this is, for it might offend somebody in the audience. Somebody out there might be thinking: "Then this means that this person won't be able to watch the shows they once liked, because it is not that popular." However, you would be making an easy misunderstanding. The shows that nobody likes would still be shown. Assume that 2% of the people that watch TV like that unpopular genre. That unpopular show would still be aired, for about 30 minutes a day. Doing some simple calculations, the show would be aired for approximately 29 minutes of the day. This would be enough to satisfy everyone: people can watch what they want to watch, and see the shows 



Source(s): http://www.statista.com/statistics/201565/most-popular-genres-in-us-primetime-tv/ 



Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-18 03:20:07
| Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (CON)
I thank my opponent for making his rebuttals.

Framework

BoP on Pro. 

Defense

1. Why is running man like a quota. There is 7 members always. However, there are guests.

2. Pro states that people can watch shows they want, that is the right of choice. They can ban quota. Pro's rebuttal to my liberty argument still fails, giving me the win of this argument. Pro also fails to rebut my 1st argument.


Thanks. I will go more in depth the next round due to the lack of time because I need to make my debate.org argument (I am 2995 ELO currently)




Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-19 09:20:01
| Speak Round
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai (PRO)
I would like to thank my opponent for continuing his debate, despite the shortening of time. 

I would also like to ask my opponent: Have you even read my previous speech? First of all, you have not even specified what definition of "quota" you would like to use for this debate. Secondly, I even said this in my second speech: " After all, quota in locally produced shows is always limiting the type of shows, though never the amount of people." However, you continue to say that the quota in your show "Running Man" will limit its character count due to quota, but quota always refers to the genre of the show, not the amount of people. And lastly, you have not even answered why you think I said: "Walking Dead" is bad. I understand that you didn't spend too much time doing your speech, but you have at least an entire day to finish you speech.

Rebuttal:

As I have stated already, quota is always based on the type of show, and the quota never limits the amount of guests of characters in a locally produced show. This eliminates your entire first rebuttal. I have even said this in my second speech: "This eliminates your first reason, because it specifies on the amount of people and guests, though not the type of show." Yet you refuse to acknowledge this statement, nor give a single argument against it. You continue to use the same misunderstood definition of quota in locally produced shows, assuming that it talks about the people in the show. 

I also do not see why my rebuttal to your liberty argument has failed. I believe I had given much reason, although I doubt you have even read my speech. Lastly, I have given my rebuttal to your first speech. I have made it much more clear why quota makes it easier for people to see what they like.

Seeing as how you have not even specified on anything that I have mentioned in my first paragraph, I believe that I have won. Unless you give lots of explaining in your next speech, the judges and I will have to come to the conclusion that you have not read my speech, and that you have lost. Give me enough reasoning, and I might be convinced to let you win.

Thank you, judges and debater.





Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-19 19:16:19
| Speak Round
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai (PRO)
Seeing as how my opponent refuses to address these things, and forfeits, I guess all 3 of the previous rounds go to me. If you choose to forfeit for the next round as well, then thanks for starting this debate. I think that it was pretty fun. You have a good way of making your opponents pissed off, friend.

I thank you sincerely for your time and consideration, judges and debater.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-22 23:02:53
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai
OK, that makes some sense about the time difference. Thank you.
Posted 2015-12-18 02:23:09
fire_wingsfire_wings
I am Asian, who lived in America, now lives in Asia again.
Posted 2015-12-17 13:18:03
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai
This info might help me with my argument and research. Since your username is in English, I will assume that you live in a European or North American country.
Posted 2015-12-17 03:24:27
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai
What country do you live in?
Posted 2015-12-17 03:11:16
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-12-29 04:28:25
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
2016-01-04 08:03:14
TiffpenJudge: Tiffpen
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
2016-01-05 06:20:26
David NeffJudge: David Neff
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
Reasoning:
fire_wing forfeited
0 comments on this judgement
2016-01-08 09:46:17
darth_timonJudge: darth_timon
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
Reasoning:
Anthony's opponent did not address his arguments, which means Anthony wins by default.
0 comments on this judgement
2016-01-11 15:35:34
lannan13Judge: lannan13    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
Reasoning:
Forfeiture
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 3 hours
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29