WWE & TNA Forum
Wrestling News
Loading...


Go Back   WrestleZone Forums > The WrestleZone Forum Archives > Non-Wrestling Archives > Cigar Lounge Debator's League
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Arcade vBookie

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-11-2010, 03:00 PM
FromTheSouth FromTheSouth is offline
You don't want it with me.
WCW TV Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ummm, the south (texas)
Posts: 1,753
FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default Week 3 Remix vs. Supercrazy

Same judge, same time frame, Remix will affirm

Resolved: A celebrity's right to privacy in personal, non criminal matters ought to outweigh the right of free press.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty NorCal View Post
Its not a double standard. FTS can do it becuase he is cooler than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneBigWill
FTS is my hero. I'm done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
We're awesome. That's really all there is to it.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-12-2010, 05:06 PM
Nu Sexier Noun's Avatar
Nu Sexier Noun Nu Sexier Noun is offline
Is a thin rope
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jolly old England
Posts: 1,147
Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...
Default

Me and Supercrazy have agreed to a swap. He'll post first in the affirmative.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-12-2010, 05:17 PM
Super Crazy's Avatar
Super Crazy Super Crazy is offline
CABS ARE HEEEERREEE!!
Knockout Champion
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fredericton NB Canada
Posts: 795
Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...Super Crazy worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

Quote:
Resolved: A celebrity's right to privacy in personal, non criminal matters ought to outweigh the right of free press.
Alright here goes nothing. I'd like to apologize again for the last round.

To me this comes down to one thing and one thing only, celebrities are people, just like you and me, and they deserve their privacy much like you and I do. I understand this is a free country, and understand the rights people have, but I don't care how much money you have, you deserve to be left alone and not followed by cameras.

That being said, I will use various examples for my side of the argument. Let's have a look at the most recent shindig and celebrity to be plastered everywhere, one Tiger Woods. He is famous for his play of the golf course, and now for his love life/personal life. If it were not for the paparrazzi and tabloid journalists, would we even give a damn about this? Tiger would still be the same man to us were he not a celebrity followed around by cameras from time to time.

Sorry I hit post by mistake, I wasn't finished posting.

Britney Spears is of course another example. I understand she brought a lot upon herself by deliberately provoking and using the media, but she was obviously and medically unwell and as such should have been left alone to get well. When did we start to live in a world where chasing mentally ill people in cars, causing potentially dangerous situations just to get a picture of them acting erratically to gain money became acceptable? This can also be applied to Princess Diana of course, who was ultimately killed because her privacy was not respected. Also, Victoria Beckham has famously pleaded with people not to photograph her young son as he has epilepsy and could become ill. Surely a young child's safety is more important than a photograph of his mother?

With the age of technology upon us, including computers, cameras, video cameras, etc, it is truly hard for anyone to not gain privacy, everywhere we go , we see celebrity images, and it is hard to turn away, why we are all fascinated by their lives, I'll never truly understand. I mean what is so different from them then the rest of the world, other then the cars the drive, they houses they live in, the places they go. Personally I think it is ridiculous that people can center their life focusing on another person's life, constantly following them and what not.

Every person deserves privacy, and almost every country has a right to privacy, and even though it is not in the constitution, many people consider this to be a basic right, and I will agree with that statement.
__________________
credit to Theo Mays!

Last edited by Super Crazy : 04-14-2010 at 05:15 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-12-2010, 07:39 PM
Nu Sexier Noun's Avatar
Nu Sexier Noun Nu Sexier Noun is offline
Is a thin rope
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jolly old England
Posts: 1,147
Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...Nu Sexier Noun is getting some looks on Smackdown...
Default

My arguement is going to be a simple one. Because a simplistic arguement is all that's required. My aforementioned arguement goes like this: freedom of the press is a right that is protected by the First Ammendment to the United States Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law in the United States. This supreme law goes well above the degree to which celebrities are exposed to the public. Not even the presidents are above the constitution. Just ask former presidents Nixon, Clinton and Andrews. If the most powerful man in the country is still bound to the constitution, celebrities have no legs to stand on here.

There's also the issue that many celebrities have made millions of dollars out of selling their lives to the press. What right have they got to say 'I'm rich because I sold my life to the press, but I dont want this life any more, so I'll sue them for invasion of privacy'? Absolutely none. If you consent to have your image shown in mass media, then not only do you have no right under the US constitution to sue the press. You also have no moral or ethical right to do so. They made their bed, now they've got to sleep in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
To me this comes down to one thing and one thing only, celebrities are people, just like you and me
Yes, genetically I am 99% the same as Amy Winehouse, or any other Homo sapiens on this planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
and they deserve their privacy much like you and I do.
I'm going to quote the philosopher Jagger here 'You can't always get what you want'. What people deserve is not the same as what they get or are entitled to. Does a war veterain deserve to find jobs nigh impossible to come by because his skills are not of value to society? No. He fought for the country for Christ's sake. Is he entitled to a job? Of course not. Employers shouldnt be forced to employ worse candidates because they fought in wars. So why should celebrities be above the constitution just because they want some piece and quiet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
I understand this is a free country, and understand the rights people have, but I don't care how much money you have, you deserve to be left alone and not followed by cameras.
Supreme law > deserving privacy. I'm sorry but it's not even a close run thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
That being said, I will use various examples for my side of the argument.
Go for it. I look forward to dispriving them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
Let's have a look at the most recent shindig and celebrity to be plastered everywhere, one Tiger Woods. He is famous for his play of the golf course, and now for his love life/personal life. If it were not for the paparrazzi and tabloid journalists, would we even give a damn about this? Tiger would still be the same man to us were he not a celebrity followed around by cameras from time to time.
So the man repeatedly cheats on his wife with a string of different women and the press is the bad guy? 'Frad not. Firstly because Tiger was the guy committing adultery here. This means he's hardly in a position to take the moral high ground. Secondly, because it was the public what threw petrol on the the camp fire, not the tabloids. It was reported that Tiger was having an affair a week before the shit hit the fan. If the public had said 'who gives a fuck' the tabloids would have moved on. It was the public that wanted more, putting pressure on the tabloids to deliver. Papers print what sells, and Tiger was the biggest draw at the time. And thirdly, nothing the tabloids were doing was criminal. I.e. they were doing nothing wrong. If they had been malicious with their stories Tiger could have told them to stop, and sue them for damages. And he would have. It's telling that this didn't happen and its him apologising not the press.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
Britney Spears is of course another example. I understand she brought a lot upon herself by deliberately provoking and using the media
Yes, yes she did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
but she was obviously and medically unwell and as such should have been left alone to get well.
You have a moral case here. Pity that what's morally right and wrong isn't close to being what's legally right and wrong. If she needed to be left alone she could have gone somewhere the press couldn't report on her daily excentricities. Hell she could have gone to rehab for 'exhaustion' or something. She didn't. She, or more likely her PR agents could have gotten her out fo the spotlight to get well. They didn't. Can I also say that Spears' publicity during this time actually benefitted her when she DID get better? If she'd been quiet during this period, nobody would have given a rat's ass about her comeback. There's a saying that's pertinent here. All publicity is good publicity, and my god Spears got a lot of puclicity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
When did we start to live in a world where chasing mentally ill people in cars, causing potentially dangerous situations just to get a picture of them acting erratically to gain money became acceptable?
Around the same time as celebrities realised that they could make just as much money by selling themselves to the press.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
This can also be applied to Princess Diana of course, who was ultimately killed because her privacy was not respected.
Bullshit. She ultimately died because she was being driven by a speeding, drunk driver and wasnt wearing a seatbelt. She'd be alive if the driver was either sober or she'd had the sence to wear a seatbelt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
Also, Victoria Beckham has famously pleaded with people not to photograph her young son as he has epilepsy and could become ill.
Now you see, HERE she has a case. This is because putting her son at risk of a seizure is not the same thing as 'wanting privacy'. This is because if a camera's flash induced a seizure, it would be a crime. In the eyes of the law, taking a flash photo of an epeleptic would, at the very least be reckless endangerment. Which is a crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
Surely a young child's safety is more important than a photograph of his mother?
Yes, both morally and, (more importantly) legally.
Quote:
With the age of technology upon us, including computers, cameras, video cameras, etc, it is truly hard for anyone to not gain privacy
This is true. Irrelevent, but true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
everywhere we go , we see celebrity images, and it is hard to turn away
Also true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
why we are all fascinated by their lives, I'll never truly understand.
Niether will I. However the fact remains that preserving the press' right to supply the public with celebrity photographs is legally more important than celebrities desire for privacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
I mean what is so different from them then the rest of the world, other then the cars the drive, they houses they live in, the places they go.
You think that you're significantly less photographed than celebrities? You're not. Ever heard of CCTV? The average Briton is caught on CCTV 300 times a day. Let's say that each time this happens it's for one second. Video cameras record 24 at 24 frames (i.e. still images) per second. This means that the average Briton is photographed 300 x 24 = 7200 times a day. Yep, our day to day lives are much more private than Celebrities'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
Personally I think it is ridiculous that people can center their life focusing on another person's life, constantly following them and what not.
Rediculous, possibly. Illegal, no. Right to do so protected by the constitution, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
Every person deserves privacy
See: Jagger on getting what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
and almost every country has a right to privacy, and even though it is not in the constitution
the right to 'invade' privacy IS in the constitution, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCrazy View Post
many people consider this to be a basic right, and I will agree with that statement.
Many people are photographed over 7200 times per day without their their consent too. Nobody's life is private in this day and age. The right to privacy is no more a right than the right to have a monogamous relationship. In both cases, you can't do jack if someone decides to ignore that right.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-24-2010, 10:38 PM
FromTheSouth FromTheSouth is offline
You don't want it with me.
WCW TV Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ummm, the south (texas)
Posts: 1,753
FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...FromTheSouth is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

I think Remix wins this debate. Supercrazy needed to to make a point that right to a free press was intended to keep openly mocking the government from being viewed as sedition. Framer's intent is always a big argument in a debate. He didn't say that, so he can't win. He didn't rebut either. That means that Remix's whole post goes unquestioned. You both wrote well, and thanks for showing up.

Remix 35, Supercrazy 29
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty NorCal View Post
Its not a double standard. FTS can do it becuase he is cooler than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneBigWill
FTS is my hero. I'm done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
We're awesome. That's really all there is to it.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 PM.

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"
Contact Us - Clear Cookies - Lost Password - WrestleZone Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Top - AdChoices