>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Debating
Bookmark topic
So a better way of putting it:
"The BBC's licence fee is good value for money as they have produced some excellent comedies like Only Fools And Horses, Red Dwarf, and successful 'alternative' comedies like The Office as they are not subject to the commercial pressures that a station funded by advertisements are. Those stations can only realistically produce programmes that are almost guaranteed success like the reality and celeb - based programmes and tried and tested formulae."
Though I suspect that could be undone by arguing that Channel 4 have produced some successful programmes whilst still being under the same market forces as ITV.
Edit:
Quote:
On 2006-08-22 01:28:38, scotsboyuk wrote:
You all seem to have done not too badly with the first point for debate, so let's move to something a little harder.
There is no absolute right or wrong.
Also, let's look at what to do when someone becomes personal (again my tongue in my cheek). If someone makes a personal comment in the course of a debate, what would your response be?
I'd point out that by making personal comments that person has shown they have lost the argument, it is the last resort for someone who has run out of salient points.
_________________
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
My Ebay Auctions Faulty bits, binoculars!
[ This Message was edited by: Sammy_boy on 2006-08-22 00:33 ]
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:31:43
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-08-22 01:31:43, Sammy_boy wrote:
So a better way of putting it:
"... and successful 'alternative' comedies like The Office as they are not subject to the commercial pressures that a station funded by advertisements are.
This is an excellent point for the BBC. You could have mentioned Blackadder, which didn't do too well in its first season, but was commissioned again anyway.
Quote:
Though I suspect that could be undone by arguing that Channel 4 have produced some successful programmes whilst still being under the same market forces as ITV.
You could point out that Channel 4 does recieve some public funding. Researching your subject matter can throw up some very nice gems that you can throw in. Research really is the debater's best friend.
Quote:
I'd point out that by making personal comments that person has shown they have lost the argument, it is the last resort for someone who has run out of salient points.
That's a perfectly good answer, but not always effective, espeially if your opponent is making salient points. Never get into a personal name calling session with someone who makes personal comments, they may be trying to draw you out in the hope that you will make an even worse comment, whereby they can then take the high ground.
The best strategy is to simply ignore the comments, don't even acknowledge them. Simply keep presenting your points in a calm manner and it effectively denied your opponent the use of the personal insult.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:40 ]
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:39:45
Edit :
Quote
I don't believe that the license fee is at all justified. We pay what is quite a substancial amount of money annually for television, and are subject to prosecution if we refuse to pay it, even if we do not watch the BBC. Advert-funded channels such as ITV and Channel 4 consistently produce programs of far better entertainment, as shown by their viewing ratings. [Insert viewing figures for Big Brother (Channel 4's main show) in comparison to Eastenders (BBC's "main show"].
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:40:24
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-08-22 01:40:24, Alec wrote:
I don't believe that the license fee is at all justified.
This is really good stuff; people are giving their view right away and very clearly.
Quote:
We pay what is quite a substancial amount of money annually for television, and are subject to prosecution if we refuse to pay it, even if we do not watch the BBC.
This is super; you really go straight for one of the biggest issues surrounding the license fee and in a very simple and straightforward manner. You don't leave your opponent much room for a retort by adding in personal grievances, etc.
Quote:
Advert-funded channels such as ITV and Channel 4 consistently produce programs of far better entertainment, as shown by their viewing ratings. [Insert viewing figures for Big Brother (Channel 4's main show) in comparison to Eastenders (BBC's "main show"].
This is another well made point. I know you didn't actually include the figures, but if this were a real debate and you had this would be a good way to really illustrate your point. It also means that your opponent has to dispute your figures.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:44 ]
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:43:50
Edit :
Quote
Yeah, I'd have added in the figures if:
a) They were easier to find...
b) I had the patience
In retaliation, I'd probably say that vieiwing figures aren't the be all and end all. Just because a program has higher viewing figures does not mean that it's of the greater entertainment.
_________________
For Sale:
D600
Check the A-Z of Trusted Traders[ This Message was edited by: Alec on 2006-08-22 00:48 ]
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:46:30
Edit :
Quote
@Alec
Patience, along with research, is probably the single biggest ally a debater has. As some may tell you, I simply keep posting until the other person gives up.
I was also trained as a historian, so I am accustomed to spending hours poring through material looking for relevant information.
I would like to move us onto a 'juicier' topic if I may. I know politics and religion are not permitted to be discussed on Esato, but since we aren't actually debating those issues I think we might be allowed to include such a topic. If not then the moderators can delete the relevant posts.
Intelligent design should be taught in a science class.
I am going to give a response to your replies on this one to see how you do when there is a rebuttal.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-08-22 00:51 ]
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:50:33
Edit :
Quote
'Scuse the brevity of my reply, on my XDA!
My reply:
'But not everyone wants to watch the same thing. There is a much wider variety of good quality programming that appeals to all kinds of people on the BBC, e.g. Timewatch docs, different genres of comedy, historical dramas like Rome and not just what is popular or guaranteed ratings winners'
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:52:00
Edit :
Quote
Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes. Science by definition means "knowledge - especially that gained through experience". Children's minds should not be filled with "possible explanations" and taught it in a class which primarily explains how the world works. What will happen then is future generations will grow up with un-prooven theories about how the world came to be, it's nothing short of brainwashing.
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:57:24
Edit :
Quote
@Sam
That's good stuff. You have singled out a line of argument that plays well with your view and you are sticking to it. It may sometimes feel like you are droning on abou the same thing, but if you can keep pressing a point you know your opponent can't easily dispute then he/she may concede the point to you, which can serve to weaken their overall argument.
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 01:57:43
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-08-22 01:57:24, Alec wrote:
Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes. Science by definition means "knowledge - especially that gained through experience". Children's minds should not be filled with "possible explanations" and taught it in a class which primarily explains how the world works. What will happen then is future generations will grow up with un-prooven theories about how the world came to be, it's nothing short of brainwashing.
Many scientific theories have holes in them or aren't conclusively proven, should they also not be taught? Should only that, which we consider to be absolutely undisputable be taught? Your use of the word 'brainwashing' seems to indicate that you are biased against it, which is hardly the hallmark of a good scientist, who should consider every possibility. If you cannot disprove Intelligent Design then shouldn't it be offered as a possible explantion?
--
Posted: 2006-08-22 02:02:21
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
