portrayal of violence

  • 格式:doc
  • 大小:28.50 KB
  • 文档页数:3

THW ban all forms of portrayal of violence in the media.Proposition:1. Portrayal of violence in the media would trigger violence in people’s realistic lives. Human beings have the nature of violence.Though human beings are the most civilized creature on the earth, they used to be like many wild animals that fight to eat, fight to win and fight to solve conflicts by using violence. Why did they used to choose violence? Because at that time humans’brains had not developed well and they were not civilized enough to think of other intellectual ways to solve problems. Therefore, violence became the essential choice. Though now we are much smarter and more civilized, it does not mean that our nature of violence has gone with our past savageness. Actually it is just hidden in people’s minds by civilization and cultivation, and can still be activated by violent stimulus. Portrayal of violence in the media is the most common violent stimulus people can receive.When watching violent films, looking at violent pictures, reading violent articles, some people are afraid of bloody pictures; some people enjoy the visual impact violent portrayals provide. At the same time, people would subconsciously take in those hints of violence, and they would see how violence can work and what violence can do to people. Because when using violence, people needn’t bother to use his senses or constrain their anger and hatred. They can just give vent to their mental grief. Then, when people confront with conflicts in reality, when they don’t want to bother to be rational or control their feelings, they would naturally use violence which was previously activated by the portrayal of violence in the media, which was learnt by people from the portrayal of violence.2. Portrayals of violence are not necessary in the media. The obligations of the media are to inform people and to provide entertainment. When reporting news involving violence, people can replace portrayals with description of words. As for entertainment, the media should cut the violent part. If violence is bad, why should the media be allowed to indulge the audience’s unhealthy taste for violent pictures? Opposition:1. The ban is a wrong way to prevent violence in people’s realistic lives. Before we act to prevent violence in the society, we ought to find out what are the real causes of violence. Violence is actually caused by irrationality and ignorance. The first cause of violence is irrationality. When people are irrational, they don’t have sound senses and fail to or are reluctant to think of intellectual ways to solve problems. Their immediate purpose is to let others feel pain, to give vent to their anger by inflicting pain on others. Irrationality makes them refuse to use their brains but indulge their anger in violence. Even though portrayals of violence could be a hint of violence to people, people would not practice violence just because they watched violent movies, if they are rational enough. Because they are rational. They know what is legal and what is the right thing to do to better solve the problems. Therefore, portrayals of violence are not the direct cause of violence. Before they could have side-effects on people, they have to target people who are in great anger and who are madly irrational. So, ultimately, the real cause of violence should be irrationality. Banning portrayal ofviolence can’t work in reality. The second cause of violence is ignorance.Some people are ignorant and they regard violence as a way to solve problems. In this case, people are rational and they do deliberately use violence, because they are in trouble and they decide violence is to be a way out for them. Some violent movies may teach them cool and strategic ways to murder someone. Then, people practice the ways they have learnt from those violent movies. It seems that the murder is enlightened by those violent movies. But, the truth is that, again, those portrayals of violence are not the exact arch-criminal. They are innocent. People accept the hints of violence from those movies and they are willing to use violence because they subjectively regard it as a feature of violence to solve problems. If there were no violent movies, they would still use violence. Thus, in this case, the problem is that some people accept violence as a way to solve problems. When they regard violence as a way to drag themselves out of trouble, nothing can prevent them from using it. So the right thing to do to prevent violence in people’s lives is to educate people and make laws, instead of banning portrayals of violence. Because it wouldn’t work at all. People can be more rational when confronted with problems or conflicts through education, since education broadens people’s minds and improves their judgment. Laws can be a forceful factor to deter violence, because people know they would be punished if they use violence. And violence is not a way out. Rather, it would put them deeper in troubles.2. Portrayals of violence cannot be avoided to show facts/truth to the public. Portrayals have three features: they have visual impacts, they carry purer information. These two features decide that portrayals of violence are an indispensable approach to showing facts. No one can deny that we do live in a world of violence. There have been domestic violence, murders, massacres, conflicts and wars. Both of the government and the media have the obligation to show the truth and facts to the public. Words can be used to tell people what happened and what is happening. People can get to know something through newspapers and articles. However, portrayals have the features that words cannot replace. They require people to use their eyes and convey facts to the public in a different way, since portrayals have visual impacts. Through history books, the younger generations can learn about Japanese invading China, the massacre in Nanjing, and how they enlisted consolatory women by force. We could almost get to know what happened before and how violence ruined families and cities by reading the words on papers, reading them like reading some stories, because those words fail to give us a real feeling. But when the photos shot during the war were showed to us, we looked at them with our own eyes and we were shocked. That moment, we literally knew what is called a massacre, what is called injustice, what is called inhumanity. We are more able to feel the tribulation that violence can bring to human beings by using one of human’s most important senses--sight. That is what the portrayals of violence can bring to us. They have visual impacts. We see with our own eyes. As a result, we know better about the facts. Another bonus is we can learn from violence; we can be educated by seeing the harm that violence did to people. In addition,articles are processed information, which is an inevitable feature of words. Compare with processed information,portrayals are more likely to give straightforward and purer information by showing real images, without any processor’s personal angle involved. People just see the facts with their own eyes and have their own conclusion.3. The free market.。