CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
How will Michael Jackson be remembered?
Michael Jackson died today aged 50 from a suspected cardiac arrest.
The singer has been surrounded by controversy for claims of indecent behaviour around children. Will he ultimately be remembered for his huge musical talent, or for the aforementioned controversies?
For his music eventually. The guy could sing. I liked the Jackson 5 stuff much better than the pop stuff though. Pop rarely survives, but I think a lot of the music from his younger days are pretty classical and can bridge the time gap.
Yes michael jackson was a great singer but he was also a great dancer with his awesome moonwalk he put his soul in his song and dance thats way we should appreciate him for that so who ever didn't like him didn't have tasty.
Look at the famous composers of the past or any other musician who has ever had a strange life but amazing music. The first thing that comes to mind about these people is their music. After this, we think about their lives.
I think he will be remembered for the great talents he possessed and for his brand of weirdness as well. This was one talented man whose name will be forever tainted by allegations which may not be true. It's a tremendous loss but I think the best was behind him unless he had something new for the upcoming tour which they will release if they have it prepared.
Yeah, there was the whole thing about him molesting children, and that will always be remembered. But when it comes to Michael Jackson, I think his music will be even more remembered.
Really, the HIStory and Thriller albums were awesome as fuck and he truly was the King of Pop.
You know, when Fera Faucett died she went to heaven and God asked her what she wanted. She said for all the children to be safe.
Okay idiot! If all the children are safe then tell me why are there still child rapist and molesters still on the streets. I actually thought you were going somewhere with your point but, it seems to be another stupid remark that really makes no sense. You guys kill me still accusing this man of being a molester without having any proof that he actually did it. Whether you guys like it or not Michael is always going to be remembered more for his music than you people trying to make him out as a child molestor, so get over it.
wow... I guess you don't know what a joke is... but okay. Jokes don't have to make complete sense, just make a point... the point being that he was a child molester.
and here's the (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jackson.html)[evidence] showing that he was a child molester.
That just may be the worst and tasteless thing I've ever heard you say Pyggy! That is so unfair especially since the man was NEVER convicted of anything! I don't think you or the world will ever understand a man like MJ!
I actually make it my hobby to understand sick people like pedophiles. in a way, they are victims of their desires, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fucking up little kids.
and OJ was never convicted of murder but we can all agree that he is a murderer.
and the worst thing i've ever said? I guess you don't read all of my posts.
I think that people outside of the U.S. will most likely remember him for his music, but Americans, specifically younger Americans remember the other side of him. (that child-molesting side)
His music touched a lot of persons and he should be remembered for that. He is now dead and I believe that we should let him rest in peace and stop condemning him.
For those who seem to want to judge a man for molesting anyone should make sure they have facts, lets not forget all the unjustice that has been done to him since he was a child as far as Im concerned michael God rest his soul died of a broken heart. As far as his music there will nothing will ever be able to compare, ever, He was a genius! Hope he can have a bit of peace now. love you michael
Definitely for his talent which shone through beyond eveything that the media portrayed about him, and the betrayal of those around him. RIP. I can remember listening to his music as a young child, teenager and adult. Then due to change in music tastes and not listening to it for years, to rediscover it through my children who chose to listen on its own merit. So Blame it on the Boogie, The man was talented.
Michael Jackson will be remembered for being the epitome of a great entertainter. All of the bullshit and lies that surrounded his personal life, aren't going to be important to history. What he accomplished and the good deeds he did are what will be told as stories for years to come. I'm sure I'll be telling my grandkids about this incredible, to say the least, man. He cared about children and the planet on which he stood, I think more than any other celebrity. He was a great person, despite what people want to believe. Like Michael once said, "Michael is the best. Screw the press." R.I.P. Michael Jackson
Yeah,Yeah, Yeah Michael Jackson will be remembered for his music and his art. To all of you people saying that no body is going to ever top Michael. You people are deluded. There is some kid somewhere in the world that will top Michael. Saying stuff like "No one will ever top Michael Jackson.", is just dis-empowering the future male singers. One day someone will top Michael Jackson.
I luck at this fom the newest generation's pov. We weren't around in the great half of his life so, and I hate to say it, most of us see MJ as a wacko. His music is awesome!
Did he buy any drugs from you? Did you see him do any drugs? How can you call him a drug addict and has he ever touched your child?So why judge him. If you were in his shoes you wouldn't like for people to judge you just the same as you judged Michael.Stupid!!!!!!!!!
Ok I understand that you are disappointed that Michael did not live up to the standards in the Moon-walker movie. When the guy was about to inject the girl with drugs Michael said "Do it and your dead."-I will never forget that line. I understand you feel let down.
However, Michael was acquitted on all of the charges and claims of child molestation. Michael was set up by that family.
the majority of the people who voted for mj being remembered for his music are people who are into his music, so this poll is not going to be accurate, because a lot of the people who have a bad impression of mj will not be on here. there are alot of people who werent into his music. i was never into his music. objectively speaking, he will be remembered as a child molester to half of the people who knew of him. the media went at him hard, and it wasn't 1 or 2 reports, they gave him negative publicity for years. the media also claims he died of an overdose, so that gives him a reputation of being a drug abuser, drug addict. i dont really have an opinion on him, because i didnt know him, but based on media reports about him, i'd say people who trust the media will have mostly a negative opinion of him. his skin didnt help him either. a lot of people believes he bleached his skin, and that makes him seem not right in the head. alot of african americans take his side, but most of the world is not african american
If I had his money? Let me tell you something, if I had his money, not only would my castle have secret rooms, but I would build a second castle so deep in the ground I would feel the heat from the center of the earth... And that would be just for my home cinema...
That's pretty selfish. You could do a lot of good with that money, too. And yes, he had enough money to get away with molesting children quite a few times. He had enough money to lure them there, to abuse them and their families. To cover it up. And to get away with it.
He molested children.
You have your opinion, and I have mine. There really isn't anything I can do to change yours, because obviously his music was so great it forgives pedophilia.
But, all in all, yesterday was a good day for his victims, and society.
That's pretty selfish. You could do a lot of good with that money, too.
Who said I wouldn't do any good with it? But I would still have a castle to myself :o)
He didn't get that money from winning the lottery you know. He earned it. And he DID do a LOT of charity work with that money.
And yes, he had enough money to get away with molesting children quite a few times. He had enough money to lure them there, to abuse them and their families. To cover it up. And to get away with it.
He molested children.
Please feel free to provide some proof to substantiate your claim. All you have is the accusations and the tabloids. For you, the fact that he had enough money to get away with it, is enough proof. That's ludicrous. According to that thought, anytime a very rich person is accused and cleared of something, they have definitely bought themselves out of jail. That's ludicrous. You have no facts on the matter WHATSOEVER. The people that DID see the facts were the jury and they found him innocent? So basically, whatever the facts, you WANT him to be guilty regardless.
You have your opinion, and I have mine. There really isn't anything I can do to change yours, because obviously his music was so great it forgives pedophilia.
At least my opinion is substantiated by the court that judged him. What is your's based on? Rumor. Rumor and SPECULATION.
But, all in all, yesterday was a good day for his victims, and society.
Unless he really WAS innocent, as found by the court. In which case, society lost a great musician who defined almost 99% of today's pop music.
No matter how much good you do, you can always do more. Any money towards a castle could have gone towards helping indigent children or others.
And PS, Charity doesn't forgive child molestation, nothing does.
For you, the fact that he had enough money to get away with it, is enough proof.
That's not what I said at all. I'm saying that in his particular situation, his money and fame worked in his favor.
My opinions are based on what he has said, and what vibes he gave off. He fit the profile of a serial molester. He was creepy, and had the opportunities.
I know he did it.
So basically, whatever the facts, you WANT him to be guilty regardless.
I don't want anyone to be a child molester. I just want those who are held accountable for it.
What is your's based on?
My opinion is based on his actions, and on the weird creepy things he has said about sleeping with children. You call it rumor, I call it victims speaking out for their rights not not be violated as children.
A recurring theme in your last argument was that you rephrased all of my arguments. Nothing you said I said or thought, was true. Please refrain from this practice in the future.
I didn't say charity forgives anything. You brought up charity and I said he did some.
According to your own words your opinion is based on the "vibes" he gave off and on the "profile" of a serial molester, on his "creepiness" and on the fact that he had the opportunities. I'm pretty sure I haven't paraphrased nothing here. Now tell me, how is that not blatant speculation? None of that is real evidence.
And then you go on to say "I know he did it" which is precisely my point. When people "know" something happened, it doesn't matter WHAT evidence you provide them with, it doesn't matter WHAT the courts find, you will still "know" that he did it...
The "victims" spoke out and the case was taken to court. The jury decided that they were not "victims" of molestation at all. Why would the jury clear a child molester on 12 accounts?
Juryies and judges always right? In my opinion, they make mistakes.
It's intuition. I have a right to an opinion that differs from from yours. We all have access to them same information on a lot of issues. There is enough evidence out there for me to know that he did it.
"Speculation" is just a negative word that you are using to make it seem like none of the evidence is of value because the court found him innocent. Well the "Speculation" I go off is the nasty stuff that he has said, and the creepy things he does. You can convict others with less than we had on him.
And no, you could convince me he didn't do it. If you had proof. But no one has proof either way. Most of the evidence was testemony. I can make my own opionion based off of that, and more than that. And based off everything I know, I know he did it.
OK, first of all, I'm not really that bothered what people think of this guy, you can have your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Have courts made mistakes in the past? Of course they have. Could it be that the court and the jury made a mistake in not convicting Jackson? Maybe.
But a court judgment is legaly binding, and whether you like it or not, this guy was found innocent by the law.
It's very easy to justify an opinion based on your disbelief in the court system.
But stop trying to justify your "wanting" for this guy to be guilty with evidence that just isn't there. All you have is the tabloids and your dislike for his "creepiness".
If you have any concrete evidence to support your opinion that he is a paedophile please go ahaid and present it. I don't have to do any of that because the court has already done it for me.
Again, I don't want anyone to be a pedophile. Of corse I wish he was innocent. His creep factor is a big deal. It's the creepy things he said and did with children in broad daylight, along with accusations brought on by the now older children that are what I call creepy.
And again, you continue to tell me what I believe, which is false. I have asked before, and I will ask again for you to not do that. My opinion is not based on a disbelief in the court system. Yes, the courts make mistakes. I believe that juries have far less evidence than is actually available. They are bound to make decisions only on evidence brought to them in the trial. If I had been a jury member I might of had to find him innocent based on that evidence alone. But I wasn't. I can base my opinion on the things I know to be true. That includes things not presented in court. Like what he said about how beautiful it is to tale children to bed with you, the secret doors to rooms that seemed to be set up to molest boys, the testemony of the families and boys who were traumatized by him. I believe them. I feel for them. And now I'm glad for them that he is dead.
Courts have to abide by certain rules. Innocent until prooven guilty. That keeps us protected from false imprisonment. But it also keeps a lot of criminals free too. I think that was the case with Michael Jackson.
If you reply to this, do not misinterpret my words for your own benefit. I won't take it anymore. And also, when you accused me of it, I had simple states that charity does not forgive pedophilia, not that you had said that.
The only point I was trying to make to you is that you don't really know whether he was a pedophile or not. It was your "certainty" that triggered this whole thing. I don't know if he is really innocent. But I won't condemn him to hell for being a pedophile, when it is uncertain if he was or not.
You didn't provide a shred of evidence to justify this certainty of yours, and on top of that you had the cheek to downvote my argument for putting words in your mouth. I didn't have to put no words in your mouth, you exposed your weak arguments yourself perfectly.
You did put words in my mouth. You just put the word certainty in my mouth, and I never used the word "certainty". That slip makes me think you're only doubting me because you might have watched the movie Doubt, and now you might think this is the same situation. If that's the case, it isn't the same situation and you need to check yourself.
You just don't have all that stuff, and the accusations, without something nasty going on. No sane person does that! It's wrong and sick. That's how I know he did it. If you'd like to come up with anything that says that crap was planted, or something else, I might be able to change my mind. But he was a whack job child molester as my opinion stands today. Nothing I have seen has said otherwise.
It's not being anal. It's being correct. You put in quotes and italics. You acted as if I had used the word certainty. Where did you get that word? If not the film about the topic of child molestation in the same light, that used that word quite famously.
With the information I have at my disposal, yes, I am certain.
Just so you know, your belief that he's guilty despite the fact he was cleared on TWELVE counts, makes you a pretty blind person, by choice. Also, I couldn't find an exact statistic because there doesn't seem to be any, but I would to point out that approx (in my vague opinion) 1 in 10, to 1 in 5 people molest. Considering the common fact that 1 in 4 ARE, at least, molested (mostly girls). Now, I'm not saying it's something to ignore because it is just SO COMMON, but I'm saying if you want to hate everyone you believe is a molester or sexual assaulter, do be prepared to hate a good hefty portion of society. In fact, I'll bet at least 1 in every 4 celebrities you think is awesome, would actually become a loser, in your opinion, and worth death, because of some "bad" behavior they have.
And P.S. my opinion has some good grounds considering I've been molested 3 times growing up. You'd think I'd hate them ALL as much as you do, but 1) it's nothing personal if the person didn't do anything to you specifically, and 2) I'm still not willing to blind myself about the person just because of some wrong they're capable of, when I don't know them personally. Michael HAD problems, the WHOLE WORLD knows this, and for all I know, he could've seriously molested, OR he could've been seriously taken advantage of because of people like you who would believe all the 'potential' lies.
But bottom line is, being able to convince yourself he's not a musically genius icon just because under the surface, he was a huge mess, is as ignorant as one can get.
I already explained that the jury has to abide by the laws of the court. They could only go off of certain evidence. Had i been on the jury I might of had to find him innocent based of the presented evidence. But as a person seeing all of the evidence out there, and the things he's said, I'm able to arrive at my own opinion.
Plus, I said his music doesn't forgive his molestation. Not that his music wasn't good or that he wasn't an icon. But I will never hear his music again without being reminded that he was sick, and didn't get help.
He could have gotten therapy, as all child molesters should. But he didn't. He didn't think it was a problem.
I think that you're having been molested so much makes it difficult. This is just a theory, I'm not a psychologist and I don't mean to impose on you, but you may be identifying that it's "normal" or "okay." But it isn't. Anyone who molests a child should be put to justice and through therapy or in a support group.
...It's nothing personal if the person didn't do anything to you specifically....
I'm sorry, but I fight for the rights of children to grow up without being molested. If you think it's okay to let a molester get away with it because it wasn't done to "you specifically" then there would be a whole bunch of serial molesters still out there.
I don't like Nancy Grace as a person... but what she does is important. And what prosecutors do in the name of children's rights is important.
I don't forgive molestation, and I don't believe anyone should. I'm sorry that you as a molested person don't feel the same way.
I couldn't find specific statistics either, but I don't believe yours at the moment. Please let me know if you find something solid, I'm very interested.
This study shows that 4.8% of males were molested, and 7.7% of females. That's 1 in 20 males, and 1 in 11 or 12 females. This study is probably skewed, because it would be mostly upper or middle class kids in a college population.
No, those statistics are REALLY off. It really is 1 in 4 women who are at LEAST molested. Many are actually sexually abused or assaulted. However, it's also estimated that only 30% of molestation victims admit it or come forward about it. It's unbelievably common in today's society. But anyways, moving on.
With the information I have at my disposal, yes, I am certain.
How on earth can you be certain about it? The man was never found to be guilty.
You say that courts make mistakes. Couldn't you say the same thing about the media? How many times has the media been known to have exaggerated or even lied about things? Countless.
I find it absurd that you show more trust towards what you got fed by the media than by the findings of a court room.
If someone wanted to get Michael Jackson in jail for pedophilia that was definitely Tom Sneddon. I think you will agree that Tom Sneddon presented every shred of evidence he had against the man in the court room. The court heard it. But they found the man innocent. Which indirectly proves that what the media was talking about was a lot of bull, published to sell copies.
Think about it. It's not hard to make up stuff. When the media say "They found a secret room, porn magazines and pictures of young children" who is to say that all these things were actually related? The secret room could have been in one part of the house. The porn magazines could have been in his office. And the pictures of young children could have been in his lounge room along with all his holiday pictures, and they may have been completely innocent pictures of him and some children, completely decent and innocent. Maybe the children were his nephews and they were pictures of them wearing swim suits on a beach. But the press comes out and says "they found pictures of semi nude children". Which is true, but not in the context that the media allow it to imply. The point I'm making is that the press is more likely to not explain all that because by implying the worst they sell more copies and they have a heavier story.
Our governments made up stuff about weapons of mass destruction to get us into war, what makes you think that the tabloids have it for anything to make up stuff against a celebrity.
Listen, I understand that you believe the man got away with it. But for me there is enough reason to be doubtful. Or at least not certain. And if I can't be certain, then I think it is unfair to be celebrating his death, or say that it was a good thing for his "victims".
"And yes, he had enough money to get away with molesting children quite a few times. He had enough money to lure them there, to abuse them and their families. To cover it up. And to get away with it."
Since when does having enough money to do something prove that you have done it?
"He molested children."
Seeing as the jury found him innocent, it turns out he did not. And seeing as the jury had better access to all the evidence against him than you, then it is you who is choosing to ignore the reality.
"You have your opinion, and I have mine. There really isn't anything I can do to change yours, because obviously his music was so great it forgives pedophilia."
Wait, did you just put words in my mouth? Did I EVER say that his music forgives pedophilia? Was that EVER what I was trying to say with my arguments?
"My opinions are based on what he has said, and what vibes he gave off. He fit the profile of a serial molester. He was creepy, and had the opportunities."
Well thank God you admitted what your opinion is based on! But none of that is proof that the guy was a child molester.
"I know he did it."
Many people know that Elvis is still alive, too. Many people know that there are aliens, too. After all, there is so much "evidence" to prove it, right!?
"My opinion is based on his actions, and on the weird creepy things he has said about sleeping with children."
That's not proof or evidence. It is you who chooses to interpret it as an admission to child molestation.
"Do you always trust a courts findings? Are juries and judges always right? In my opinion, they make mistakes."
Unless I have evidence to suggest that the jury was bribed, or that the case was rigged, then yes, I trust the finding of that court and so should you. Even Tom Sneddon accepted the finding of the court. If you are doubting the court then you are doing so by choice.
"It's intuition. [...] There is enough evidence out there for me to know that he did it."
Well thank God we don't judge people based on our "intuition" of them. I assure you, if someone judged you on intuition, you would be seriously pissed off.
"Well the "Speculation" I go off is the nasty stuff that he has said, and the creepy things he does. You can convict others with less than we had on him."
The stuff that he said is not "nasty" by default, it is YOU who has judged it to be nasty because you are filtering it through your preconceived idea that he is a creepy child molester. What kind of society would we live in if we convicted people cause they were "creepy"?
"And no, you could convince me he didn't do it. If you had proof. But no one has proof either way. Most of the evidence was testimony."
Of all the things you said, this was the most ludicrous. Let me remind you that people are innocent until proven guilty. It is the accuser that has to prove something, not the accused. The accusers in this case clearly didn't have enough proof to convict him. HE doesn't have to prove nothing, because THEY haven't proved anything to begin with. If he had been found guilty, then and only then, would your ridiculous argument make sense. Then and only then would he be required to prove his innocence. But that never happened! He was never found guilty!
"I believe that juries have far less evidence than is actually available. They are bound to make decisions only on evidence brought to them in the trial. If I had been a jury member I might of had to find him innocent based on that evidence alone."
I didn't hear Tom Sneddon complain that some of his good evidence was not accepted by the court... And if there was any, then the court must have had some very good reason for not accepting it. You see the courts don't entertain tabloid rumors...
"I can base my opinion on the things I know to be true. That includes things not presented in court."
If there is any place in the world where evidence is scrutinized to pieces then that is the court room. If the court room decided that certain things were not "evidence" then those things are clearly not "evidence".
"I believe them. I feel for them. And now I'm glad for them that he is dead."
The members of the jury have repeatedly told the media later on, how the mother was an over dramatic LIAR. This is the same mother that earlier on defended Michael by saying:
"The relationship that Michael has with my children is beautiful, loving, father-son and daughter one. To my children and me Michael is part of the family."
Then all of a sudden, she pays a visit to Larry Feldman, the same attorney that represented Chandler and got $20 million from Jackson. Note that she didn't go to the authorities first. She went to the attorney that could get her $20 million dollars...
"You just don't have all that stuff, and the accusations, without something nasty going on. No sane person does that! It's wrong and sick. That's how I know he did it."
Every single paragraph of that website you provided can be disputed and nothing in there is really evidence of anything. But if you lump it all in one sentence then you have a very deceiving and dirty context.
"He had books of photographs of nude young boys. Art or not. You seemed to miss that scrap of information."
I also have books of photographs of nude young boys.... Some of those boys are under 10 and they wear nothing but a garment that covers their genitals...
Does that sound sinister? Of course it does. But the reality is that those "books" are my holiday photo albums, and those "nude young boys" are my little cousins playing in the beach. But if I was accused of child molestation, the media wouldn't tell you that they were holiday photos, would they? In the court room they would be dismissed cause they are not evidence of any wrong doing. And yet people like you would be convinced that I am a child molester.
.
I will repeat what Nichole said to you so eloquently:
"your belief that he's guilty despite the fact he was cleared on TWELVE counts, makes you a pretty blind person, by choice."
You can't blame a child for their mother's actions.
I conceded that someone is innocent until proven guilty. That's why he was found innocent, because they could not prove him guilty in the courts. That doesn't make it true.
Our opinion differs, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. And now we may never know.
But don't think I'm blind. I didn't read the tabloids or watch the trial. I didn't think he was amazing or a genius or an icon either. I judged him as a man and found him to be a psycho. That doesn't make me blind.
Everyone wants to call Michael a child molester. What about parents who sleep with their children sexually? That happens everyday.This boy that accused Michael of molesting him only did it because his parents told him to do it because they couldn't pay his medical bills. So get the facts before you start judging anyone because it takes an ass to make an assumptionof a situation.But a smart person to get the facts.
what a shame that the fact that he was accused of being a sex offender gets more billing than the FACT that he was aquitted of all charges. You have to remember at the time of the trials Michael Jackson was already recieving alot of negative press for slipping infront of PAul McCartney and snapping up the rights to more beatles songs , the cosmetic surgeries and accusations that he was gay, buying the elephant mans bones, sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber, changing his colour. I dont think anyone would have been Bias in favour of Michael Jackson, so one can only assume that the evidence alone must have PROVEN him innocent as I am positive everyone would have tried their hardest to prove otherwise. I am wondering if those responsible for the destuction of Michael Jackson will ever have to face extortion, defamation of character and slander charges.
I grew up listening to the Jackson 5, cartoons and regular shows. I like his music... But yet 1 awe-shitosky wipes out all the at-a-boy's he has created...