CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
28
Yes No
Debate Score:42
Arguments:33
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (12)
 
 No (18)

Debate Creator

Srom(12206) pic



Is TVs more dangerous than guns?

Yes

Side Score: 14
VS.

No

Side Score: 28
1 point

I think it may be. To be specific, violent media could be more dangerous than guns. Compare America if all guns were removed with a society that had guns but no violent media (tv video games, etc). Which would have more homicides? I think America would.

Side: Yes
1 point

It's a potential brainwashing tool.

Side: Yes
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
1 point

but still less danger than brain penetrating tools :D

.

Side: No
Elvira(3446) Clarified
1 point

It can give people the reason to buy a big brain penetrating tools :D and kill people.

I guess.

Side: Yes
1 point

This is true... have you ever tried dropping a TV off a ten story building? It can be very dangerous for those on the sidewalk below.

Side: Yes
1 point

How ridiculous? Not sure if sarcasm, but anything could be used as a weapon with enough imagination.

Side: No
1 point

A gun would kill you in fraction of seconds and you will die before you can feel the pain but a TV makes your mind restricted, your thoughts restricted because you probably can't express what is in your mind and burns your creativity as you don't have a chance to imagine because everything is already shown and there is no need of you to think about it.

Side: Yes
1 point

TV can be a brainwashing tool with subliminal messages, and affects the brain heavily. Dying swiftly under a gun is no match for mind control.

Side: Yes
1 point

Television can make you into the perpatrator of wwIII. Mind control to the public is more dangerous than a gun or death.

Side: Yes
1 point

I say it is because TV media games etc Includes guns and influence What if their was never any TV or radio?. To promote that stuff.

Side: Yes
1 point

Video games, television and radio don't promote violence, it is merely a medium of violence based on fictitious violence. There is a clear disconnect between virtual and actual violence.

Side: No
1 point

Yes it is. I think kids nowadays see many kinds of violence with the use of the media especially the television. There are people who think that what they see on tv is good, even violence. So some people do what they see on tv.. therefore, commits more violence.

Side: Yes
1 point

a tv might not have killed people totally but makes their life considerably miserable causing so many diseases which kill them every second

Side: Yes

Yes. The medias influence is more powerful than you think. Lets take it for an example, in endorsements. Why do you think women waste their money in beauty products even though they`re already beautiful? Obviously, the media tells us that we are incomplete and we need their products to feel better about ourselves. Another would be crappy movies, just because its actors are talk show hosts or what not, once they endorse their movie many people will watch it even if its full of nonsense. Ideas are more powerful than brute force. Dig in deep of what you are really watching.

Side: Yes
4 points

I don't think a person went into a school with a TV and killed 26 people with it.

Side: No
2 points

Actually the boy who shot 26 people played a lot of violent video games like Call of Duty before he did the incident.

Side: No
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
3 points

I've spent thousands of hours by killing people on computer. I won competitions in it... yet I've never punched a real person...

Side: Yes
2 points

Thats more video games and not TV.

Side: No
2 points

The correlation between playing violent video games and actual real life violence is insignificant, I have played many violent video games, and I haven't killed one person.

Side: No
2 points

No, this debate is absolutely foolish, and obnoxious. The TV can be only classed as dangerous if the person viewing it is easily influenced by entertainment. The gun is only dangerous if the person wielding it has irresponsible intentions. You can not say either is dangerous on their own, but it is how the person interprets them

Side: No
MrPrime(268) Clarified
2 points

I don't think the point of the debate was to say either is dangerous on its own. It's dangerous when mixed with a "questionable" person.

Side: Yes
2 points

Although this is similar to ''gun vs. camera'' the gun is more dangerous. A TV can not shoot masses of people at a time. It may brain wash people, but not kill them.

Side: No
2 points

If a person does dangerous things after watching TV, then they were already psychologically messed up. That's not the television's fault, unless watching the television directly gave the person some sort of brain defect. If there was any such evidence to suggest that this happened, and that it happened because the technology in the TV caused it, only then would it be the fault of the television company and not the person who did the insane thing.

Side: No
2 points

No, they are not. In the sense of watching TV and how you absorb and process what you see is up to YOU, not the televison. Guns are used specifically as a weapon to kill, or injure. TV's are used for entertainment, even though much propaganda exists, and the attempts of the media to brainwash society, a lot of us can think for ourselves and stand up for our own mind.

Side: No
1 point

The original function of tv is entertain . Although some programmes are violent, it is programmes' problem rather than TVs' problem. Guns are weapon, its design is using to protect people and hurt people. No matter protect or hurt people, it is undoubtedly injure people. Meanwhile, the damage brought by guns is serious and even lead to people die.

Side: No

Guns are dangerous in general, but they are more protection than dangerous. They are only dangerous in the wrong hands. Televisions haven't killed one person neither have guns.

Side: No

Actually the boy who shot 26 people played a lot of violent video games like Call of Duty before he did the incident.

Side: No

If a person does dangerous things after watching TV, then they were already psychologically messed up. That's not the television's fault, unless watching the television directly gave the person some sort of brain defect.

Side: No

TV can't compare with guns. TV is harmless whereas guns are destructive.

Side: No