Debate about media streaming: We regret the rise of online streaming platforms

This lesson plan is about organizing a classroom debate. We are not — this is crucial — organizing a discussion. A debate differs from a discussion because it is structured and has clear rules:

• The debate topic is worded as a proposition that some speakers will support and some will oppose. There is no working towards a compromise; one team wins, and the other loses;
• In this version of formal debate (adjusted for classroom use), we have two participating teams (proposition and opposition);
• Debaters cannot choose which side they represent in a debate - the sides (proposition and opposition) are assigned randomly with a coin flip:
• The rules clearly specify who speaks when and for how long.

For a classroom debate, we propose the following format:

• Each team has three speakers, who will each hold a 4-minute speech;
• During the main speeches (but only after the first 30 seconds and before the last 30 seconds of the speech), the opposing team can stand up and offer a question. Every speaker must accept and answer one question from the opposing team. Alternatively, you can have a 1-2 minute time slot for questions after each speech – we recommend this option if you want to engage more students and if your students are new to public speaking and might be intimidated by interruptions;
• The students who are not delivering speeches act as debate adjudicators.

First speakers (on both sides) should set up the debate and provide the initial arguments. Setting the debate means establishing the main definitions and clearing up what the debate is about (for more information, see the lesson plan “Motion analysis”). Second speakers should be bringing in final arguments, responding to the opposing team’s arguments, and rebuilding their first speaker’s arguments. Third speakers should analyze all arguments, respond to their opponents, and rebuild their own argumentation. In other words, they should provide an overview of what happened in the debate and why their team won.

The rest of the class should serve as debate adjudicators. They should be taking notes and weighing proposition and opposition arguments. Instruct them to be objective and to evaluate only the speeches they’ve heard, putting aside their personal opinions and/or arguments and examples they would have used as debaters.

If you want to engage the students more actively, you can always adapt the proposed format to fit more students - have 6 students per team, and have each of them deliver a 2-minute speech. A separate pair of students per team can also be used for asking and answering questions. If you are curious about more classroom debate formats, we recommend you read the chapter “Debate in Classroom” in the Melita Methodological Guide.

After you form the teams, they should have time to prepare. Students who are not debating should also participate in preparing arguments.

Students are allowed to use textbooks and the internet while researching for their arguments. If your students are still struggling, we recommend you pause their group work and do a quick brainstorm as a class, making note of all the reasons to propose and oppose the motion.

To the extent possible, the students should try to build arguments on their own. If they are struggling, use any of the arguments listed below to provide them with an idea of what an argument for or against this motion could look like.

Proposition

Definitions:

Online streaming platforms platforms, such as Netflix, Spotify, and others, offer on-demand streaming for a subscription.

1st argument: Streaming platforms are bad for art producers

Explanation:

1. Streaming services, when they reach a critical point, become such a strong player with so much leverage that the art producers have very little choice: if they do not publish on a platform, they lose a significant way to access their audience, if they do, however, they are faced with extremely low pay and royalties, which puts them at a disadvantage.

Example:

Spotify, the most popular music streaming platform, is notorious for offering extremely low amounts of money to its musicians. The same goes for other streaming platforms, like, for instance, the audiobook platform Audible, which offers extremely unfavorable rates to most writers.

Impact:

We believe that artists should receive just pay for their work, especially given that they already fight for their survival constantly. Therefore, we believe that the world would be better without streaming platforms.

2nd argument: Streaming platforms are making discovering new content worse

Explanation:

1. Streaming platforms use algorithms to present content that the consumer is most likely going to spend the most time listening to. This is so because they must continuously convince the consumer to subscribe to their service.
2. Because of this, most content they promote will be content that is really similar to what the consumer already knows. However, this means the consumer is not really likely to explore different genres, which is a riskier process.

Example:

People used to browse music in stores, listening to random CDs; nowadays, Spotify tells them what to listen to.

Impact:

This leads to people being more boxed in and not diversifying their tastes, which is bad because they are less likely to discover new genres they would potentially enjoy even more than what they know right now.

3rd argument: Streaming platforms contribute to the globalization of content.

Explanation:

1. Streaming platforms have to be very large to reach their critical point. This means there are mostly just global or regional streaming services, while local streaming services are less successful and less common.
2. This leads to the whole world consuming the same content, with less focus on content from individual countries or cultures and less representation.

Example:

Netflix means that the whole world watches the same content — which centralizes content production and means less support for local production.

Impact:

This leads to less diversity in content production, which is bad, because it means only some stories get told, while most stories lose a lot of their support.

Opposition

1st argument: Streaming platforms allow us to choose what content to consume and when to do so.

Explanation:

1. Before streaming platforms, we were limited to what was playing on the television or on the radio, which was displaying random content that was programmed, as opposed to streaming platforms where anyone can at any time consume any content.
2. This is especially important to people with more niche interests because they were only rarely displayed before online streaming, though they are now accessible on streaming platforms.

Example:

Imagine life before Netflix. You could only watch what was on television, which meant you had a much harder time picking the content you wanted to see — as opposed to now.

Impact:

Quality of life improves greatly with online streaming platforms, which already represents a good enough reason to support them.

2nd argument: Streaming platforms pool resources that supports a wider spectrum of content.

Explanation:

1. If content production is dispersed into many small organizations, they have less money, which they then all use to cover their basics:
   1. basic comedy show
   2. basic crime show
   3. basic news broadcast
2. Streaming services have a lot more money, which means they can afford a lot more diversity content-wise — this represents a more efficient usage of resources.

Example:

Netflix represents a great example of how much diversity you can unlock when you pool resources as opposed to what — for similar money — a smaller industry would create.

Impact:

We can get a higher diversity of content, which means people consume a higher variety, which in turn gives them more to think about and makes them better and more active citizens.

3rd argument: Online streaming brings content from different countries to global audiences

Explanation:

1. Streaming platforms unite catering for local audiences with their global markets, which is why a subscriber to Spotify can listen to a wide array of music from all over the world.
2. Before streaming platforms, people listened to their local scene and to the most dominant global artists and content, usually all originating in the U.S. With streaming platforms, people, besides engaging with their local scene, also engage with a higher diversity of global actors.

Example:

Netflix greatly benefited television productions in India, for example, by showcasing their work to global audiences.

Impact:

This is an additional reason why diversity increases — we get a more equal stream of content on a global level, which can promote more acceptance and a higher chance of dialogue.

The debate takes place; some students debate, the others take notes and adjudicate.

1. Who do you think won the debate and why?
2. What would you do differently?
3. Did your opinion on the topic change after watching the debate?