This is a formal, 1 person vs 1 person debate.
Debate Idea: Wings of Selkhet.

The debate: Should Television, Radio and other media be Censored, or should we have the right to watch what we want to watch? Should swearing, sexuality, anti-americanism etc etc be taken off the air and censored from the general public, or should we be subjected to this as we feel fit?

This dabe will consist of one person debating for censorship and one person against censorship. A cointoss will decide who debates for what. Each debater will be allowed 1 opening statement followed by 5 body posts and one conclusion and will be rated by our judges on style, persuasiveness, countering and relevancy.

Any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to PM me.

I'll be glad to be debate for or against it, but would prefer the latter

Thanks for the interest, student&alive.
One more person to debate this subject.

*Raises hand*

I'm game.

(If you could weight the coin so I can argue against censorship, that'd be just super).

Since you're both hoping for debating FOR, a coin toss will be in order.

..

And the results is:
Student&Alive, you will be debating FOR censorship.
AndyThorley, against censorship.

Any problems, PM me and i'll help you out.

One intro, 5 body posts, one conclusion. Happy debating.

Rock Rock on!

I'll let the "For" side debate their argument first.
Partially out of common courtesy, but mostly because I need to go to work now

AMES, i've deleted your post. Formal Debates are ONLY for the people debating, not for anyone else.

Okay we're waiting for an opening statement from the debaters.

Mon opener:

In this debate I shall prove that censorship of the popular media is wrong, focusing specifically on TV and Radio, but with one or two references to other forms of media, such as the internet.

I shall prove that writers, directors and other such media figures should be allowed to say, do and depict whatever they please without a third party agent telling them what they can and cannot show, no matter how gruesome, gory distasteful or provocative their ideas may or may not be.

-edit-
My spelling is awful

Okay.
Student&Alive has resigned from the debate, so we need someone else to show their interest and participate in the debate.
Since AndyThorley has already posted his opener for censorship, the new participant will be debating AGAINST censorship.

Thank you.

[edit]
KCET, i've deleted your post. Unless you are going to participate in the debate, you cannot post your opinion in these forums.



[edit] We're still looking for someone to debate against Mr. Thorley in the debate.

My bad,

you know what, I didn't read that Student&Alive resigned.


Big Mack wanted to join the debate.


Oops.

haha. No sweat MC.

Okay Big Mack, you're in! I'll send you a message.

As Mr. Thorley has already given his opening statement, we'll be waiting for you to give yours to get this debate underway. You'll be debating FOR censorship in TV, radio, media etc. We're looking for an opener, 5 body posts and a conclusion from each debater.

Good luck to both debaters!!

Opener: I will debate agaisnt the topic of Censorship. I will show facts and proof of my side.

I will try my best to prove that censorship is wrong.

Body Post No. 1

(I've never debated before, im scared)

Im Body Post No. 1, I will discuss the effect of censorship/noncensorship.

Well, we aren't barbarians right? So if censorship is destoryed, babies, and children would not be 'protected' by censorship. All that nudity, gore and violence on an impressionable child's mind could have a mental effect, and he might mimick what he does on TV.

Like a little boy who cuts his dog up.

He wouldnt know better.

I'm afraid this debate is over.

Big Mack wins the debate by default. It's been over 2 months since Andy Thorley posted his introduction which is way more than enough time to post again. Thank you to Big Mack and Andy Thorley for taking part.