Here's a surprising bit of research: labeling something as off-limits often makes people more curious, not less. Spoiler warnings work the same way. They turn a passing detail into forbidden fruit, so people fixate on it and hunt it down. Without the warning, most spoilers would fly right past someone. The other side says warnings protect the experience, but the label itself is what primes people to look. That's how a helpful warning quietly ruins the surprise.

A surprising fact from curiosity research: labeling information as off-limits can measurably increase the urge to seek it out. That's the problem with spoiler warnings. My opponent's Apollo 13 point is fair, known outcomes can still grip us, but that's about unavoidable knowledge, not a bright label stuck on a detail. I think the warning is an active cue. It turns a throwaway line into forbidden fruit and pushes curious people toward the exact spoiler they wanted to avoid. So craft survives spoilers, sure, but the warning changes behavior in a way that undercuts the first-time experience.

The commuter example actually proves my point: a label doesn't shield that person, it hands them a map. And the smoke alarm analogy cuts the other way. A smoke alarm tells you where the fire is so you can avoid it; a spoiler warning tells you where the twist is so curious people walk straight into it. That's the practical cost. People who'd never have noticed a detail now treat it as forbidden fruit, and everyone else learns to flinch at plot points. My opponent says the spoiler is the culprit, but the warning is what turns a random sentence into a target. That behavior change is real, and it's exactly what hurts first-time viewing.