THIS HOUSE BELIEVES REALITY TELEVISION

DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD

Reality television has become very popular over the past decade
with shows such as "Survivor", "Big Brother" and "The Apprentice"
attracting big audiences and making a lot of money for broadcasters
worldwide. A definition of reality television is quite difficult but at its
most basic it means programmes that show things really taking
place, rather than drama or comedy that follows a script. Typically
reality TV involves a group of people who are not trained actors
being filmed in unusual situations over a period of time. Sport and
news programmes are not considered reality TV. Documentaries that
explore aspects of society are a grey area, with some closer to news
reporting and others blurring into reality TV because they set up
situations which did not already exist. Recently celebrity versions of
reality shows have made definition even harder, because they show
the private lives of professional singers, actors, sportspeople, etc. as
they cope with new situations. Reality TV is often a hot topic as
proponents believe it paints an unrealistic and inappropriate portrait
and is therefore bad for our society and the children that make up
the majority of the audience. They call for a cut in the number of
hours given over to reality programmes, or even to ban them
completely. Opponents meanwhile maintain that people should be
allowed to watch what they like, and that reality programmes make
good TV, as shown by consistently high viewer figures.

The sheer number of reality programmes is now driving TV

producers to create filthier, more corrupt reality shows.

POINT
Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more
and more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media
coverage, shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive,
trying to find new ways to shock. When the British Big Brother was
struggling for viewers in 2003, its producers responded by
attempting to shock the audience that little bit more1. "Big Brother"
programmes have also shown men and women having sex on live
TV in a desperate grab higher ratings to justify their continued
existence. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we let
things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings?
When reality is "constructed" then it substitutes the "natural" reality.
This in turn has adverse effect on the natural growth of the children
who are either actively involved into it or as audience become a
passive recepient. We therefore in a pursuit of commercialization are
taking away an inalienable right of children i.e. full personality
development in a natural environment which is not contaminated by
"constructed" reality.

COUNTERPOINT
Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more filthy. What
has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable viewing.
In other words, the gap between what is actually real and what is
presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs.
And the gap is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their
TV screens. For example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes
of Big Brother is not shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the
context of what we expect to see on television. The fact it was
shown only illustrates that the gap between what is actually real and
what is presented as reality on television is closing. If the proposition
has an issue therefore with what modern reality shows are
presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not reality
programs.
Even if were the case that reality programmes are getting more
corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former U.S.
President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'

Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status, and

discourages the value of hard work and an education.

POINT
Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of
instant celebrity. They are typically built about shameless self-
promotion, based on humiliating others and harming relationships
for the entertainment of each other and the viewers at home. These
programmes suggest that anyone can become famous just by
getting on TV and "being themselves", without working hard or
having any particular talent. Kids who watch these shows will get
the idea that they don't need to study hard in school, or train hard
for a regular job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we tell kids what
matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why some behave the
way they do' 1 As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to
celebrity culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down women.' 2
Reality shows encourage such addictions and promote the generally
misguided belief that they should aspire to be the reality stars they
watch on their televisions.

COUNTERPOINT
Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education, rather it
creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong
sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social
glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television channels,
and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a
shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them
common things to talk about at work and school the next day
water cooler moments. Reality programs like Survivor play that
role in contemporary society with viewership being almost a cultural
imperative, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and
family.1
Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral lessons of
reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can
empathize with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be
them, the same applies to questionable characters and actions in
reality shows.2

Reality shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting television,

encouraging such behaviour in society.

POINT
Reality shows are bad, lazy and corrupting television. They mostly
show ordinary people with no special talents doing very little. If they
have to sing or dance, then they do it badly which doesnt make
for good entertainment. They rely on humiliation and conflict to
create excitement. Joe Millionaire, where a group of women
competed for the affections of a construction worker who they were
told was a millionaire, was simply cruel. The emotions of the
contestants were considered expendable for the sake of making
viewers laugh at their ignorance. Furthermore, the programmes are
full of swearing, crying and argument, and often violence,
drunkenness and sex. This sends a message to people that this is
normal behaviour and helps to create a crude, selfish society. One
American reality show, Are You Hot?, in which competitors submit
to a panel of judges for appearance-rating, was blamed by eating
disorder experts as encouraging the notion that appearance is the
most important thing (Becker, 2003).1 Furthermore, Paul Watson, a
former reality TV show producer, believes they are predictable and
just creates more of the same and makes our film makers lazy (Jury,
2007).

COUNTERPOINT
Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They do reflect our
society, which isn't always perfect, but we should face up to these
issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. When
Adam Lambert, an openly gay contestant on American Idol, lost in
the final of the show despite being widely regarded as the best
singer, many rightfully pointed out what it demonstrated about the
homophobia of American society. To deride reality shows as
'corrupting' therefore is misguided; it is society who is corrupt and
reality shows that offer a potential solution. To solve a problem first
requires accepting one exists, and reality shows provide a means to
do that; they are a window into society, permitting everyone to
reflect on the issues that are most harmful to society. As such,
reality show producers should not be accused of a lack of creativity
or laziness for their programmes, but congratulated for drawing
attention to important issues.

Reality shows are not 'real', therefore they have no

education value.

POINT
Reality TV is dishonest it pretends to show reality but it actually
distorts the truth to suit the programme makers. The shows are not
really real they are carefully cast to get a mix of characters
who are not at all typical. Mostly they show a bunch of young, good-
looking self-publicists, who will do anything to get on TV. Usually the
programme makers try to ensure excitement by picking people who
are likely to clash with each other. They then place them in
unnatural situations, such as the Big Brother house or the Survivor
island, and give them strange challenges in order to provoke them
into behaving oddly. In The Bachelor, where a group of women
compete for the affections of an eligible male, the intimate dates
they go on are filmed in front of any number of camera; that is not
reality (Poniewozik, 2003).1 Finally the makers film their victims for
hundreds of hours from all angles, but only show the most dramatic
parts. Selective editing may be used to create storylines and so
further manipulate the truth of what happened.

COUNTERPOINT
Reality shows are real; they are real people operating without scripts
and often, live. The fact that characters are often cast to encourage
disagreements or tension does not take away from the reality of the
program, in fact it only adds to it. The unrealistic settings of shows
like Big Brother and Survivor do not take away from the educational
value of observing how they cope. In fact, without such shows, most
people would have little concept of how a group of strangers would
be able to survive, co-operate and develop in such environments. As
Time describes, 'they provoke, they offend but at least it's trying to
do something besides help you get to sleep'. The insight therefore
into the human condition is invaluable, and it is little surprise that
viewers are eager to watch such programs. What is real is not
always the same as what is normal, the events on Survivor Island
are no less real for being in an unrealistic setting.

Reality television is popular and TV producers should give

audiences what they want.

POINT

Reality television programmes are very popular with audiences of all

ages and types. They may not be high culture but most people do
not want that from television. Most viewers want to be entertained
and to escape for a while from the worries and boredom of their
everyday life. American Idol rejectees who stubbornly insist that
they have talent provide such escapism.[1] Furthermore, and
importantly, such contestants are good natured in doing so, they are
not exploited but offer themselves to reality shows.[2] Therefore,
there is no harm in giving the people what they want that is what
the free market is all about. Reality shows are also popular because
they exploit new technology so that millions of people can
participate in the programme typically by voting. Britain is
believed to have had as many as 176 reality TV shows in a single
year.[3] Such supply can only be driven by excessive demand.

COUNTERPOINT

Reality television is not what audiences want, it is watched simply

because it is there. It is what John Humphrys calls carbohydrate
television, it probably hasnt done you much harm and if it leaves
you feeling a bit bloatedwell you can search out of a bit of quality
stuff.[1] With tens of television channels and twenty-four hours of
programming to fill, reality is simply a cheap means to ensure there
is always something on TV to watch. In Italy, the evidence supports
such claims, with the state broadcaster Rai deciding to scrap reality
programmes in 2008 due to low demand.[2] As Rais President
stated, I dont believe they are the type of shows the majority of our
viewers expect or want from a public service broadcaster.
Reality TV can be educational and have real effects in
society in a way other television programmes do not.

POINT
Reality TV can be very educational. They educate people by
displaying disastrous consequences of someone's behaviour, thus
deterring others from doing unplanned and silly actions.
Programmes such as "The Apprentice" have made people think
about business. Jamie Oliver has raised issues of youth
unemployment and poor diet, and "Fit Club" has got people thinking
about health and fitness. Jamie Oliver's inaugural reality show,
'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless youngsters the 'chance to train and
lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of school meals' 1.
Without the TV show's popularity funding the initiative, the
youngsters involved would not have had such an opportunity and
school meals would still reflect what kids want to eat, not what they
should be eating. Such effects on society are beneficial and should
be encouraged, not restricted.

COUNTERPOINT
The few reality TV programmes that are educational and beneficial
do not balance the bad majority. The majority are not educational,
either to the public or the participants, and the insight they purport
to offer into the human psyche are misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a
contestant on the British Big Brother series, describes, contestants
and viewers alike 'subscribe to this utterly specious notion that fame
is entirely desirable' (BBC News, 2001), whilst Narinda Kaur, another
contestant on the show, admitted "I came away from this experience
thinking 'oh my God, did I really say that?" (BBC News, 2001). As
Claudio Petruccioli, head of the Italian state broadcaster Rai, notes,
'reality TV shows put people into environments that are both
unrealistic and coercive'1 Any lessons learned are therefore
inapplicable to real-world situations.

The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or

watch something else.

POINT
Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality
television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as
"The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-
Jazeera and other international broadcasters also cover news and
current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National
Geographic or Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into
our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever
before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not ruined television as a
whole, they have merely added another option for viewers. Indeed,
because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on
other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers,
regardless of personal taste for genres.

COUNTERPOINT
Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that
often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series
can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing
to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy,
music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality
rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules
of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK,
France Tlvisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate
the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility as Rai
has by saying it wont have any more reality shows.

Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as

a society.

POINT
Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are
effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study
people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms 1. Humans
are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In
these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual
situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in
remote environments, make us think about what we would do in
their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in
general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from
us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with
them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American
Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as
criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about
reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows
are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to
these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them.

COUNTERPOINT
Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing us to evaluate
our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular social
norms'1. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as
being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most
reality TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our
views of society, but reinforce the often false notions we already
collectively hold. For example, the US reality show "Are You Hot?"
asks competitors to submit to appearance-rating by judges, only re-
inforcing the false premise that one is defined solely by the way they
look2. Furthermore, even if accepted that reality shows do present a
'real' image of society, programmes like Big Brother and Survivor
erode the distinction between public and private, turning 'people
with real lives and real problems and real children (into)
entertainment'3. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come
at the expense of the privacy that protects families and children.
 Yes, they give people the wrong idea Reality shows like keeping
up with the Kardashians are pointless. They let normal people into the
lives of celebrities. People call someone like Kim Kardashian a role model
but are quick to forget she became famous for a SEX TAPE. They are also
bad because children watch them. The younger generations are becoming
more and more desensitized by watching all the garbage on tv and the
internet. This is why we have middle school aged children having sex in
school bathrooms and doing drugs. They see 20 something year olds
doing it on tv and want to be cool so they do it too he they are
fundamentally and mentally not ready. Report PostLike Reply00
Tv Reality shows are useless You don't need them, they teach you
nothing. The information is wrong and it leads you along the wrong
pathways. It is bad for our brains and turns them into a thick oozy mush.
Also no one should care about what goes on in Kim Kardashians boring ,
repetative, crazy life Report PostLike Reply00
It bad for our brains even though most people use less than
10% of it like me Hard but it doesn't help you in your normal life if you
wan a be a reality T.V star you have to have a interesting life and we all
know most of us don't have very interesting lives like me i just sit at home
and watch t.V so there you have it. Now who is going to argue against me.
Report PostLike Reply00
Television obviously shows harm Television has lots of shows which
shows unmatured scenes.Children will be curious and keep on
watching.These show will have bad influences on both adults and
children.Young adults and children would follow at times,so that is why
telly does more harm than good.If you have anything more to
say,comment.Please like it. Report Post

opp

Reality TV should NOT be banned! People think reality TV is all

violence it may be but it is good because it shows what people should and
shouldn't act like. On the other hand reality TV can be very educational
there can be choices that people can look and think about,like jobs,what
your future job can look like, what you need to practice before going to
experience what you job can or could look like. Report PostLike Reply11
Allows people to show their talents Reality TV allows talented
young or old people to show the world their amazing abilities. In many
reality TV shows, people are competing for a prize - the prize being the
 opportunity to pursue their dreams. For example, in the X Factor, the prize
is a recording contract with a music studio. Reality TV helps the
undiscovered become discovered. Report PostLike Reply00
It's inspirational shows Reality TV shows can be inspirational in many
ways. For example, a reality TV show that expresses inspiration is
Americas Next Top Model. Even though not every girl can win, many
women have gone off and succeeded in life after with the help of that
show, for example, Tocarra Jones did. All of you might be think that the
girls in Americas Next Top Model are catchy but then again in this case the
girls are in theirselves and have to battle against others to become a
winner. According Radford says that the majority of viewers that watch
reality TV shows are more likely to inspire leadership. Report PostLike
Reply10
Reality tv shows are real, no script 1. Reality shows are not worse
or harm. As we know that it just for entertain others and also reality
shows are funnier rather than another program, such as scripted shows
that the actor / actress have trained and learnt before about what they say
when they are perform. Its really contrast with reality shows because
these programs are more authentic. The actor / actress arent memorize
the line which they say before, so they do in spontaneous and also some
reality shows programs, show the fact about life and we can learn from
there. Report PostLike Reply10
Reality tv shows educate the viewers Reality TV can be an
educational programs. They educate people by asking/giving information
about current affairs, global history and general knowledge. This show
provides new knowledge and increases the viewer's intelligence. For
example: Who wants to be a milionere, "Who are smarter than fifth
grader". All of the educational programs make us to have a more
knowledge about social knowledge, sciences, mathematic, history. Both all
of them it can happens in all this education program. Report PostLike
Reply10
Reality shows give us an inspiration and also develop our
social and empathy One of the reality show programs is talents show;
it allows people to perform their skills / abilities. The benefit of this reality
show is we can see a lot of talents, such as dance, sing, and art, which are
very unique, rare and never seen before.Another reality show is Charity
show; it can develop our social and empathy by watching a person who
suffered from pain and help them by giving something, such as medicine,
food, money, and clothes. Report PostLike Reply10
 Reality tv show is Inspirational Reality shows doesnt harm for
others. Reality show program is inspirational. It provides viewers with
good role models and influences them to make positive decisions, lifestyle
and mindset changes. It also enable children to understand the
importance of ethics and values, and also enhance their critical thinking
ability about life and society. Report PostLike Reply10
Prepares people for the world Reality tv shows people that the real
world is fun na d interesting and should be embraced and it shows people
that everything could be worse so they learn to embrace everything that is
around or close to the individual. Reality tv shows different perspective on
life displaying education, exotic behaviors and some of life's different
opportunities. Report PostLike Reply00
It is good It can help you learn from the mistakes of others It seems like
everyone nowadays is on OKCupid (even the characters on The Vampire
Diaries), but after Manti Te'o's girlfriend was revealed to be a man, many
people became hesitant towards online dating. Not me! I've watched every
episode of Catfish and am well-versed in the tell-tale warning signs.
Whenever anyone says they're a model or doesn't provide pictures, back
away from the profile immediately! Report PostLike Reply00
Why are we going to take more rights away! We barely have
rights as students 15 and under. The world is going to collapse. Because
we have less rights as students, we should have rights that we believe for,
we should be making our own decision so we can know how to make our
own decision in life. This is why We should not ban reality shows. Report
Post

Reality Television Has Negative Effects on Society

Yes because...
Reality shows are bad, lazy television. They mostly show
ordinary people with no special talents do...
Reality shows are bad, lazy television. They mostly show ordinary people with
no special talents doing very little. If they have to sing or dance, then they do it
badly which doesnt make for good entertainment. TV bosses like them
because they are cheap compared to putting out shows with proper scripts,
actors, musicians, etc. Even if they are popular, that doesnt make them good
programmes. It just means that some people have no taste and will watch any
old rubbish. Broadcasters should be aiming at excellence, giving their viewers
quality programmes which expand their cultural horizons.
pointArgument ENDS
No because...
Reality television programmes are very popular with audiences of all ages and
types. They may not be high culture but most people do not want that from
television. Most viewers want to be entertained and to escape for a while from
the worries and boredom of their everyday life. There is no harm in giving the
people what they want that is what the free market is all about. Reality
shows are also popular because they exploit new technology so that millions
of people can participate in the programme typically by voting.
pointRebuttal ENDS
pointWrapper point1 yesPoint ENDS

Reality Television Has Negative Effects on Society

Yes because...
Reality TV is dishonest it pretends to show reality but it
actually distorts the truth to suit t...
Reality TV is dishonest it pretends to show reality but it actually distorts the
truth to suit the programme makers. The shows are not really real they are
carefully cast to get a mix of characters who are not at all typical. Mostly they
show a bunch of young, good-looking self-publicists, who will do anything to
get on TV. Usually the programme makers try to ensure excitement by picking
people who are likely to clash with each other. They then place them in
unnatural situations, such as the Big Brother house or the Survivor island, and
give them strange challenges in order to provoke them into behaving oddly.
Finally the makers film their victims for hundreds of hours from all angles, but
only show the most dramatic parts. Selective editing may be used to create
storylines and so further manipulate the truth of what happened.
pointArgument ENDS
No because...
Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society. Humans are endlessly
different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we
see people like us faced with unusual situations. That makes us think about
what we would do in their place, and about what principles should govern
human behaviour. It also shows us people who look very different from us,
and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them.
pointRebuttal ENDS
pointWrapper point1 yesPoint ENDS

Reality Television Has Negative Effects on Society

Yes because...
Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of
instant celebrity. These programmes s...
Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant
celebrity. These programmes suggest that anyone can become famous just by
getting on TV and being themselves, without working hard or having any
particular talent. Kids who watch these shows will get the idea that they dont
need to study hard in school, or train hard for a regular job.
pointArgument ENDS
No because...
Reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were
only a few television channels, and everybody watched the same few
programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people
together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next
day water cooler moments. As the number of channels increased hugely,
this sense of shared experience was lost and our sense of community went
with it. Big reality TV programmes have brought that sense of shared
experience back, as viewers from all social groups follow the twists and turns
of each series together.
pointRebuttal ENDS
pointWrapper point1 yesPoint ENDS

Ad 3
Reality Television Has Negative Effects on Society
Yes because...
Reality shows are corrupting as they rely on humiliation and
conflict to create excitement. The pro...
Reality shows are corrupting as they rely on humiliation and conflict to create
excitement. The programmes are full of swearing, crying and argument, and
often violence, drunkenness and sex. This sends a message to people that
this is normal behaviour and helps to create a crude, selfish society.
pointArgument ENDS
No because...
Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They do reflect our society, which
isnt always perfect, but we should face up to these issues rather than censor
television in order to hide them. On the other hand, reality TV can be very
educational. Programmes such as The Apprentice have made people think
about business. Jamie Oliver has raised issues of youth unemployment and
poor diet, and Fit Club has got people thinking about health and fitness.
pointRebuttal ENDS
pointWrapper point1 yesPoint ENDS

Reality Television Has Negative Effects on Society

Yes because...
Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that
often there is nothing else to watc...
Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is
nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on
end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like
this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in
favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows
crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC
in the UK, France Tlvisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and
educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility as Rai
has by saying it wont have any more reality shows.
pointArgument ENDS
No because...
Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television.
For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as The Sopranos or
Pride and Prejudice. The BBC and other international broadcasters cover
news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes bring the
wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in
more detail than ever before. So reality shows have not ruined television as a
whole. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend
on other types of programmes, they are actually good for television.
pointRebuttal ENDS
pointWrapper point1 yesPoint ENDS

Reality Television Has Negative Effects on Society

Yes because...
Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes
more and more used to the genre. In a ...
Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and more
used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage, shows are
becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find new ways to shock.
Already some Big Brother programmes have shown men and women having
sex on live TV. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we let
things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings?
pointArgument ENDS
No because...
Some reality programmes are bad, exploiting people in nasty ways, but many
are good. This is true of all kinds of television, from soap operas, to comedy
and new shows. It is wrong to label the whole genre as bad just because of a
few shows.

PRO (3 assertions)
Grabbers:
1-- Did you know that research indicates that regular reality TV viewers
emphasize being mean and/or lying to get ahead? A higher percentage of
these girls as compared to their non-viewing counterparts claim that
sometimes: You have to lie to get what you want (37% vs. 24%); Being mean
earns you more respect than being nice (37% vs. 24%); and You have to be
mean to others to get what you want (28% vs. 18%).
2--In a study, those who viewed reality TV regularly were more focused on the
value of physical appearance. The study found that girls who view reality TV
regularly are more focused on the value of physical appearance. 72% say that
they spend a lot of time on their appearance, vs. the 42% of non-viewers.
More than a third, 38%, say they spend a lot of time on their appearance, vs.
the 42% of non-viewers. They would rather be recognized for their outer
beauty than their inner beauty (28% vs. 18% of non-viewers).
Conclusion:

You counter arguments about reality/contestant shows like American Idol or

Americas Got Talent as saying while they're not harmful, they aren't good
either. So you have the best of reality TV having no effect, I mean, its just
entertainment like any other show- neither good nor bad effects but the worst
of reality TV clearly does more harm; therefore, overall, the entire genre of
reality TV does more harm to society.

Refutations:

Reflect on bad acts (consequences)--Refuted by first point.

Give people chances to shine (American Idol)--Although some of these

contestants may be given a chance to shine, the majority of them end up
being embarrassed because of their auditions. When these children or adults
fail, they won't be happy. Most of the time, America does not, in fact, have
talent.
Good shows (Animal Planet)--There are so many shows which have negative
impacts on our societies. Furthermore, these shows are the shows which are
watched more than the Animal Planet shows. Impressionable viewers who
watch Jersey Shore are 38% more likely to have negative opinions about
Italians and young adults. This is sourced from the Wall Street Journal. Is this
positive? Not at all. There are more negatives shows than positive shows, and
more people watch these negative shows. Thus, the harm outweighs the good
when it comes to reality TV.

Entertainment--Although these shows can be used for entertainment, the

harm that we've shown has outweighed this simple, small amount of
entertainment.

Form of escapism--Since it is a form of escapism, people may think that they

should copy the reality TV stars. Then, they will copy the bad acts done by the
people. Elaborate with first point.

Rights--We are not arguing that it should be banned. We are simply showing
how the harm outweighs the good, as we have proven.

1. Assertion: Reality TV shows give people chances to shine and show their
true talents.
Reasoning: There are many shows, such as America's Got Talent and
American Idol, which allow normal people such as you or me, to show off their
talents. These allow people with unrecognized talents to gain fame and wealth
when they never would have been able to. This is even better than a lottery.
Evidence: There are tons of current singers who became famous and rich just
because of American Idol, such as Kelly Clarkson, Adam Lambert, Kris Allen,
Chris Daughtry, Clay Aiken, Rubben Studdard, Jordan Sparks, Carrie
Underwood, Fantasia Barrino, Jennifer Hudson, Kellie Pickler, Katharine
McPhee, Elliott Yamin, David Cook, and David Archuleta. All of these singers
who wouldn't ever have been famous now are world renowned thanks to the
reality tv show; American Idol. These reality tv shows give the average
American hope in a debt-stricken country such as our own. Another example
is Britan's Got Talent. Susan Boyle, a not-well known opera singer until her
premiere on Britan's Got Talent, is now world famous because of her singing
on Britain's Got Talent. She is now a multi-millionaire and has gained a lot of
fame. Impact: Many Americans and British people will have hope in a
terrible economy. When everything bad is happening, the only good left is
hope. Reality TV is the sliver of sun that is trying to break through the
impassable barrier. Reality TV is our only joy in our depressing economy.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
2. Assertion: The shows don't do any harm because all one has to do is turn it
off.
Reasoning: Reality TV itself can't make the children addicted to themselves.
Really, bad or negligent parenting is at fault if impressionable children are
watching inappropriate shows--not the show itself. That's why most shows
have ratings like 14+ for viewers minimum age. These shows are not meant
for children, and that is why they've earned these ratings. It is the parents' job
to make sure that these children do not see inappropriate material. Older
people know the consequences of these actions, and can react appropriately
to the situations displayed. We agree that if young children who do not know
how to react to the situations that are portrayed on some reality TV shows,
however, it is not the reality TV that is doing the harm, but rather the
irresponsible parents who allow their children to watch these shows.
Impact: The long-term impact of this is that children will be able to watch the
shows that are age appropriate, while adults will be able to be entertained by
the sometimes inappropriate material portrayed on reality tv.
Source: Huffington Post
3. Assertion: People reflect on the bad actions and do what is right.
Reasoning: Many of the reality tv shows actually show bad things such as
drinking, taking drugs, or swearing. However, they also show the
consequences of doing these bad things. Children and even adults watching
these shows can see what can happen after doing that, without experiencing it
first hand. It shows them exactly what not to do. Although these shows are not
about math or science, they are educational, in the sense that they teach our
younger generation right and wrong. This would help our children to make the
right decisions later in life.
Evidence: In 2009, the teenage pregnancy rate in the United States dropped
to its lowest levels in 70 years; the birth rate among girls aged 15 to 19 fell to
39.1 births per 1,000 teens. That's a six per cent decline the largest one-year
drop in 40 years. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned
Pregnancy released a survey in 2010, in which 87 percent of teens who had
watched MTV's 16 and Pregnant felt the show educated them about becoming
a parent at such a young age. Only 13 percent felt the show glamorized teen
pregnancy. Also, the Girl Scout Institute conducted a survey in April 2001,
which consisted of a national sample of 1,141 girls aged 11 to 17. 75% of
surveyed girls said the programs have inspired conversations with their
parents and friends. Some girls even said they take inspiration from the
shows, with 68% agreeing with the statement that the shows make me think I
can achieve anything in life, while 62% said the shows have raised their
awareness of social issues and causes. 62% of the reality TV viewers
responded No to a question asking, Do you think a girl's value is based on
how she looks? The survey also found that regular reality TV viewers are
more confident and self-assured than nonviewers when it comes to virtually
every personal characteristic they were asked about. In contrast to the popular
image that most teen girls are obsessed with being beautiful and getting a
boyfriend, this poll comes to many of the opposite conclusions; for example
less than half, 42%, of the non-viewing girls said they "spend a lot of time" on
their appearance.
Impact: Clearly, these reality TV shows are positively benefiting people.
These teenagers see the consequences of bad decisions, so they don't make
these bad decisions. These people are helping to boost self esteem and make
them feel like they can achieve anything.
Source: Discovery Channel, National Campaign to Prevent Teen and
Unplanned Pregnancy, Girl Scout Institute

CON (3 assertions)
Grabbers:
1-- Did you know that 62% of the reality TV viewers responded No to a
question asking, Do you think a girl's value is based on how she looks?
2-- Did you know that over 15 winners of American Idol are now superstars or
celebrities?

Define:
Reality T.V.--genre of television programming with unscripted situations,
documents actual events, and features unprofessional actors
More good than harm--there is some harm, but the benefits outweigh the
harms
Resolution is specific to the U.S.

Weighing Mechanism:
This debate will be weighed on which decision would provide the most
oppurtunity for success for ordinary people.

Refutations:

AT: Negatively influences people -- Refuted by first point. We are arguing

that the harm outweighs the good, and it is clearly shown by our first point. As
we have stated, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned
Pregnancy released a survey in 2010, in which 87 percent of teens who had
watched MTV's 16 and Pregnant felt the show educated them about becoming
a parent at such a young age. Only 13 percent felt the show glamorized teen
pregnancy. 87% is more than 50%, so the good is outweighing the harm.

AT: Addictions -- Refuted by second point.

Hurts the stars on it--It is completely these people's choices to participate in
these shows. It's not like we forced them to do it, and they should've realized
the risk of humiliation. It is completely not the shows' fault, but the people's.
Therefore, reality TV shows shouldn't be blamed for the people's choices.

AT: Inappropriate -- Refuted by second point

Causes people to do crazy things just to get on--It is completely these
people's choices to do this. It's not like we forced them to do these crazy
things. Reality TV shows shouldn't be the ones at fault; it should be the
people.
1. Assertion: Reality TV leads to increased TV watching in both children and
teenagers, which causes grades to drop.
Reasoning: These children and teenagers get easily addicted to these shows,
and this only helps them take away time from their schoolwork. The US is
already behind most other industrialized countries in education.
Evidence: According to the New York Times, Americans spend 1/3 of their
free time watching television and of that 67% are reality shows. Clearly, this is
too much time being wasted watching non-educational, addictive shows.
Impact: These shows only help make our future generations not as educated
and smart. This will lead to the unemployment rate going up and more poor,
starving, homeless people on the streets.
Source: New York Times
2. Assertion: Reality TV hurts the stars who are on it, their whole lives, and
their reputations.
Reasoning: When a person becomes part of a reality tv show, they do not
realize how their life will be affected. These shows will usually make them look
mean and nasty. These people will end up doing stupid stuff and sometimes
stereotyped.
Evidence: Take, for example, Teresa Giudice, who in the show The Real
Housewives of New Jersey, flipped a table at a couple of other women. Now,
she is thought of as a person with anger problems and many people have sent
her mean and nasty notes; some even asking her if she is going to an anger
management class. The director of this show loved this, and instead of letting
this go, decided to publicize this, making Teresa a very disliked person. This is
all thanks to reality TV. Another example of this is that of Balloon Boy which
happened in 2009. A 6-year-old boy was sent in a mylar-balloon on accident
into the sky. When he landed, the boy was not inside. In an interview with the
family, the young boy, Falcon Hene, said that his father told him, This is all so
we can be famous and on a reality TV show. The father soon disregarded this
comment but it is obvious that the child told the truth. After this incident, this
boy was tormented by his friends and classmates, and he was called a liar
because his father would not admit his mistake. Another example of this is Jon
+ Kate plus 8. They were once a happy couple but now because of all the
stress and work that they must suffer through, they are divorced. This also
affected their children because now they are split between their father and
their mother. This decision did not only affect themselves but also affected
their children, who sadly didn't have any say what so ever in this matter.
Impact: People's lives will be changed because of reality TV. This will
negatively affect many people who take part in these reality tv shows and
ultimately ruin their whole lives forever and ever. Clearly, reality TV causes
problems and only makes situations worse for these reality TV stars.
Source: BBC
3. Assertion: Reality television negatively influences people.
Reasoning: Reality TV shows obviously negatively influence people. People
won't see the consequences of these bad actions; instead, they will simply
copy everything that they do. How is this going to help our children, teenagers,
and even adults? All these shows show to us is how to do bad things, and we
don't learn from it. People imitate everything that happens in these reality TV
shows since they are reality. However, it's really just bad behavior that we
shouldn't be teaching to our U.S. citizens. It is an assumption that these
people will actually analyze the shows and realize that they shouldn't do these
things. Judge, after watching TV, do you sit there for half an hour and analyze
what you just watched? Or do you just go on with your life? Moreover, do you
think that children and teenagers will analyze the shows? The answer is that
these people will just copy every negative thing that is shown on the show.
Evidence: According to Medical Procedure News, reality television is
attributing to cosmetic surgery procedures with more than 9.2 million
procedures performed as result of people watching these shows. Sourced
from WebMD Medical News, reality television is contributing to eating
disorders in teen girls. With shows like Are You Hot? The Search for America's
Sexiest People and Extreme Make Over, young women believe that to be
accepted you have to be hot or a bombshell. Since the boom of reality
television in 2000, eating disorders in teenage girls (ages 13-19) have nearly
tripled. Teenage girls are now suffering from anorexia and bulimia, due to the
fact that these shows teach them that they need to have no fat and be
extremely skinny. The Girl Scout Institute conducted a study in April 2011,
which sampled 1,141 girls ages 1117. All of the girls felt that reality TV shows
promote bad behavior. The vast majority think these shows often pit girls
against each other to make the shows more exciting (86%), make people think
that fighting is a normal part of a romantic relationship (73%), and make
people think it's okay to treat others badly (70%). Regular reality TV viewers
accept and expect a higher level of drama, aggression, and bullying in their
own lives as well. They are considerably more likely than non-viewers to
agree that Gossiping is a normal part of a relationship between girls (78% vs.
54%); It's in girls' nature to be catty and competitive with one another (68% vs.
50%); and It's hard for me to trust other girls (63% vs. 50%).
Impact: Clearly, these shows are detrimental to our U.S. citizens and
negatively affecting all of us. These teenagers do not realize that these are the
things that they should not do; they follow it as if it's what they should do. This
is not sending the right messages to our people. Are we trying to tell them that
you need to have no fat at all to be pretty? Or are we trying to tell them that
everyone needs plastic surgery to become perfect? How about that lying and
being mean leads to success.
Source: Medical Procedure News, WebMD Medical News, Girl Scout Institute