The speakers debate the merits of pay television compared to non-subscription TV.

The proponent, Sylvester Weaver, frames the issue as a question of being pro-business or anti-business. He argues out-of-state businesses are watching the situation to determine if they want to operate within California, or elsewhere, themselves. He further argues the capital investments by the pay television company will be good, and he says the opportunities pay television will present will lead to entire new fields and industries. Finally, he mentions the consumer will be able to see things on pay television they will not on broadcast: 3-hour uncut movies, high art like the opera, and baseball games the broadcasters are not currently showing.

The opponent, Vincent Wasilewski, argues pay television will do a disservice to the general public. He warns freedom of choice will be harmed, and the public will have to buy new equipment. He argues free broadcasting is a democratizing influence in culture, further saying allowing content to only those that pay is harmful to society. He says that, eventually, the public will wind up paying for what they used to get for free, singling out baseball games. He says progress would be if television had started as a pay service and then made free. Saying the current debate is to do the opposite, he argues pay television is the antithesis of progress.

In rebuttal, Weaver says market forces will prevent many of the ills Wasilewski mentioned.

In rebuttal, Wasilewski argues Weaver is dealing in abstractions. He goes on to mention the pay television companies are corporations and that corporate culture is antagonistic to the needs of the consumer.

Related topics are then covered in a standard question-answer-rebuttal form.