That there should be a quota on television for locally produced shows

I would also like to ask my opponent what he/she means when they say the term "quota." The quota can mean the amount or type of shows that are shown on a particular channel, or you could be referring to the amount of the rating given to the particular shows on the channel. I will give an argument as to both, although I will be referring to the first one slightly more. In your next argument, could you please specify on what type of "quota" you are referring to? Thank you.

Have you ever been looking for a really good show for you to watch on the TV, but can't find anything? If so, you may be one of the hundreds of "channel surfers" that are always on the lookout for a good show to watch. Throughout this speech, I will be using "The Walking Dead" as an example. Pretend that you like survival horror, and enjoy a riveting story, and great characters (or maybe you already do, if so, then you already know what I am talking about). However, you haven't found anything good to watch, nor have you ever heard of "The Walking Dead." Looking online and having a quota to see what types of shows are on the local channels would be really helpful right now, but of course, America doesn't have any! Having a quota would revolutionize said "channel surfing," and would also make it a lot easier to see the shows you would like.  

Do you think that you would want to watch a show that only has a rating of one star out of ten stars? I know for sure that I would not like to. This is where the quota comes in. If people give a huge rating for a popular show like the "Walking Dead," more people will definitely hear about it. This will benefit both the channel and the viewer if the quota is at least satisfactory. The channel that shows "The Walking Dead" will get money from more viewers, and the viewer gets quality entertainment. In fact, a popular channel once rejected the show "Mad Men," because they were afraid that it would take time out of their schedule, and would also be disliked by their viewers. However, they were sorely wrong. If they had actually taken the time to see the rating/quota from the viewers, they would have realized that "Mad Men" was an incredibly popular show, and places around #43 around the ranked TV shows in North America. This might seem like it is a relatively bad show (#43 is often not good), but it is remarkably good, with hundreds of shows in the US.

You have asked if we should have a quota for locally produced shows, but the truth is, people are already doing it. According to Toby Mendel, the Head of Law Program, and Ken Bhattacharjee, Legal Officer, their published document of "Local Content Rules in Broadcasting" states that 17 different countries have already begun to use a quota for their local channels, including Canada, a North American country. Not only that, but it is incredibly successful, stating all the types of shows that the entire country broadcasts. It has already proven to be a resource for the people searching for channels.

Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.

I would also like to state that you agreed with my definitions "for the most part," although the way that you used my version of quota is very different. How can I create an argument if the sides do not even agree on the definition itself? I am not assigning blame. I am just wondering which type of quota you would like to use: my definition or yours. For my speech, I will be using the ones that you stated for definition agreement. 

Secondly, you stated that "My favorite show is Running Man (5) which there are 7 members. People might think this is quota, but it is not." How is this quota? I wish to ask my opponent why some people will think that this might be quota. Is the quota that you are referring to talking about the amount of people? After all, quota in locally produced shows is always limiting the type of shows (i.e: comedy or drama, or sometimes the country's productions), though never the amount of people. This eliminates your first reason, because it specifies on the amount of people and guests, though not the type of show. It also raises a question in your second argument. While I understand your reason itself, I would like to quote part of your argument. You said: "People have the liberty of choice, meaning they can hire as many people as they want," which might still refer to the amount of people in a show.

Lastly, you state: "He makes an example that walking dead is bad," although I fail to see when (or why) I have said this in the speech. While merely a minor thing, I would like to specify why you might think this, and correct this. 

Because you refuse to give a rebuttal for several of my points due to lack of reasoning, I will now give my reasoning in my arguments. I will also apologize for me not making it more obvious for my opponent. First of all, my "quota" that I mentioned works in the way that a channel surfer can easily find what they are looking for: more popular genres of shows are shown more often, and there is not much of a quota for them. The most popular genre of TV show, which happens to be Reality TV Shows, should be shown more according to its popularity among its viewers. If there was a quota, the most popular genre of TV show would be aired the most, and least popular less often. There will still be unpopular genres that will be shown, although not nearly as often as popular genres.

You also said that people have the liberty to choose what they want to watch. I will still argue against this statement, even though some of your argument was not understood, because it referred to the wrong thing. For you and the judge's convenience, I will state part of it here: "People have the right of choice." You might be saying that if there is a quota, then someone who watches locally produced shows might not be able to watch the shows that they liked. Say that they like to watch weird shows that not many other people like. I will not specify what type of genre this is, for it might offend somebody in the audience. Somebody out there might be thinking: "Then this means that this person won't be able to watch the shows they once liked, because it is not that popular." However, you would be making an easy misunderstanding. The shows that nobody likes would still be shown. Assume that 2% of the people that watch TV like that unpopular genre. That unpopular show would still be aired, for about 30 minutes a day. Doing some simple calculations, the show would be aired for approximately 29 minutes of the day. This would be enough to satisfy everyone: people can watch what they want to watch, and see the shows 

Source(s): http://www.statista.com/statistics/201565/most-popular-genres-in-us-primetime-tv/ 

BoP on Pro. 

1. Why is running man like a quota. There is 7 members always. However, there are guests.

2. Pro states that people can watch shows they want, that is the right of choice. They can ban quota. Pro's rebuttal to my liberty argument still fails, giving me the win of this argument. Pro also fails to rebut my 1st argument.

I would also like to ask my opponent: Have you even read my previous speech? First of all, you have not even specified what definition of "quota" you would like to use for this debate. Secondly, I even said this in my second speech: " After all, quota in locally produced shows is always limiting the type of shows, though never the amount of people." However, you continue to say that the quota in your show "Running Man" will limit its character count due to quota, but quota always refers to the genre of the show, not the amount of people. And lastly, you have not even answered why you think I said: "Walking Dead" is bad. I understand that you didn't spend too much time doing your speech, but you have at least an entire day to finish you speech.

Rebuttal:

As I have stated already, quota is always based on the type of show, and the quota never limits the amount of guests of characters in a locally produced show. This eliminates your entire first rebuttal. I have even said this in my second speech: "This eliminates your first reason, because it specifies on the amount of people and guests, though not the type of show." Yet you refuse to acknowledge this statement, nor give a single argument against it. You continue to use the same misunderstood definition of quota in locally produced shows, assuming that it talks about the people in the show. 

I also do not see why my rebuttal to your liberty argument has failed. I believe I had given much reason, although I doubt you have even read my speech. Lastly, I have given my rebuttal to your first speech. I have made it much more clear why quota makes it easier for people to see what they like.

Seeing as how you have not even specified on anything that I have mentioned in my first paragraph, I believe that I have won. Unless you give lots of explaining in your next speech, the judges and I will have to come to the conclusion that you have not read my speech, and that you have lost. Give me enough reasoning, and I might be convinced to let you win.

Thank you, judges and debater.

I thank you sincerely for your time and consideration, judges and debater.