In an effort to be more realistic than the past, Hollywood now glorifies dysfunction

Reasons to agree: 

1. TV glamorizes dysfunction too much
1. Reasons to agree: +5
1. Homer Simpson chokes Bart. 
2. Many kids grow up only seeing dysfunctional families on TV, and think they want nothing to do with family life. 
3. When I wrote a book report in Jr. High Rosanne was on. I wrote, "In contrast, I recently watched Roseanne. The show started out with three criticisms in a row, between Roseanne and her daughter. Rosseane would say something mean about her daughter's grades. Then the daughter would say something mean about Roseanne's weight. This continued for the whole show. The next day I watched Roseanne again. Roseanne thought that Tom wanted a divorce. She said, "I want the house, he can have the kids, but I want the house." Many kids grow up thinking this is the way marriage will be, and it is not a laughing matter. It seems there is no value placed on children. The number one thing is money. Many Educators believe attitude's about family relationships are formed by "casual contact" with shows like Roseanne."
4. When I wrote a book report in Jr. High I wrote: "Most shows that portray husband and wife relationships, show them constantly bickering. I watched Family Matters recently. I thought this would be an exception to the rule, but the wife and the husband were very mean to each other. In one conversation the wife and husband were sitting on the couch and talking: "Carl can I speak openly?", the wife asks. "Yes,"he says, "You're a Jack---" (Family Matters Feb. 25, 1994). The crowd again erupted with laughter."
5. TV shows often tell kids how to rebel against their parents. The parents are alwasy the stupid ones.
6. In the first Roseanne ever, Roseanne took her sixteen year old daughter, Beckey, to buy birth control pills. At first she did not want to, but a bunch of her friends talked her into it. The show's main theme was; how mean it is for parents to not let their kids have sex. 
2. It is dysfunctional to have casual sex. Hollywood promotes casual sex.
1. Assertion #1: It is dysfunctional to have casual sex. 
1. Reasons to agree: +5
1. Sex addicts have noncommittal sex, in a very dysfunctional way. 
2. It is dysfunctional to make poor choices. It is a poor choice to have casual sex. 
1. Reasons to agree: +5
1. Casual sex is a rejection of commitment,. The ability to make commitments is required, in order to be a functional member of society.
1. Reasons to agree: +5
1. Those unable to maintain long term faithful commitments before marriage, are less likely to stay in committed relationships after marriage. Committed people are looking for different things. They are 2 different types of people. There are people who build relationships slowly, based on common interest, respect, 
2. Commitment is required in order for relationships to last. Those who are not committed to marriage will suffer economically, romantically, and emotionally. 
1. Reasons to agree: +5
1. A study of about 9,000 people found that divorce reduces a person's wealth by about three-quarters (77 percent.
2. Dwindling marriage rates are concentrated among the poor — the very people whose living standards would be most improved by having a second household income.
3. It is dysfunctional to risk having babies with someone with whom you have not made a life long commitment. It is dysfunctional to take unnecessary risks that can alter the wrest of your life, for momentary rewards of having a boyfriend, being "cool", or giving into other people's desires. 
4. The secret that no one wants to talk about is that it is dysfunctional to have casual sex outside of marriage. The upper class of people have less divorce, and get married. The lower class of people are unable to control their genitals, and end up producing unwanted babies, abortions, and have crappy lives that are controlled by their dysfunctional sex lives. Sure, rich people sleep around too. Sure, some poor people are very ethical and committed to their spouses.  But the statistics prove that poverty follows those who are unable to control their sex lives. TV shows that glamorize irresponsible sex, are convincing stupid people (largely the lower class) to live lives of poverty, and slavery to dysfunction. 
2. The study of about 9,000 people found that divorce reduces a person's wealth by about three-quarters (77 percent) compared to that of a single person, while being married almost doubles comparative wealth (93 percent). And people who get divorced see their wealth begin to drop long before the decree becomes final.
3. TV normalizes behavior.
1. Reasons to agree: +3
1. TV is the way we think other people live. 
2. We often don't see inside other people's homes, unless it is on TV. 
3. A section of Superfreakanomics proves this (the section is the unlikely savior of Indian women). Here is a discussion of the research. 
4. Our personal relationships have too much dysfunction
1. Reasons to agree: +1
1. "The divorce rate remains, stubbornly, one out of two. The out-of-wedlock birthrate has tripled since 1970; it is among the highest in the developed world. A nauseating buffet of dysfunctions has attended these trends--an explosion in child abuse, crime, learning disabilities, and welfare dependency, name your pathology."
5. TV glamorizes dysfunction more than it used to
1. Reasons to agree: +1
1. People on Leave it to beaver were pretty functional. They were patient, avoiding extremes of anger, selfishness, and cruelty. It taught the generations how to understand each other, how to laugh at each other, and how to get along with each other.
6. TV characters don't have to be dysfunctional to be interesting. 
1. Dis functional people are boring. 
1. Reasons to agree: +1
1. They always give into selfish motives. 
7. When the TV shows disinfection, they teach people how to be dysfunctional.

Reasons to disagree: 

1. There is no such thing as Hollywood. There are hundreds of writers, producers, etc. 
2. Hollywood just does what sells. It is our fault for watching all these TV shows. 

Books that agree:

1. Hollywood vs. America: The Explosive Bestseller that Shows How-and Why-the Entertainment Industry Has Broken Faith With Its Audience

Webpages that agree:

1. http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/11/02/introducing-the-superfreakonomics-virtual-book-club-meet-emily-oster/

Interest of those who agree

1. Improving society. 
2. Teaching good behaviors 
3. Patting themselves on their back for how good they are.
4. Identifying themselves to their circle of friends as part of the "good guys", the conservatives
5. Not wanting to come off as too accepting

Interest of those who disagree

1. "Keeping it real". 
2. Exposing bad behaviors
3. Pushing boundaries. 
4. Patting themselves on their back for how cool, hip, counterintuitive they are.
5. Discussing difficult topics
6. Making money. 
7. Identifying themselves to their circle of friends as part of the "good guys", the conservatives. 
8. Proving how open minded they are. 
9. Not wanting to come off as too judgmental