The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 61105
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I am going to argue that the advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated.

1 round acceptance only.
2 round argument
3 round rebuttals


I shall accept this debate as the Contender, arguing against the resolution that advertising on the internet requires strict regulation, based on these commonly held definitions:
Advertisement: means of marketing by which one person is paid to market another's product or service.
Regulated: Made to comply with rules created by a State.
Good luck, and may this be entertaining and enlightening.
Debate Round No. 1


Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated, Since there are a lot of advertisement on the internet which promote
pornography and similar types of things such as dating sites etc. we all know that internet is very common and almost everyone uses it. Now imagine a 8 - 12 years old child is using the internet for playing games or watching cartoons on the internet and an advertisement promoting pornography comes up, and out of curiosity he clicks it, he will be redirected to that site. Now isn't
that child abuse. Kids at such a tender age getting exposed to stuff like that. Even teenagers get exposed to such things and end up getting addicted to it, that could have serious consequences.


Thank you Pro for a swift, concise, and clear opening. The resolution is for advertising on the internet to be strictly regulated, for purposes of protecting the minds of the youth. I shall argue against government regulation of internet advertising, for pragmatic reasons involving people in any given country that attempts to control the internet, reasons of free speech, and for those that engage in the business of marketing on the internet.

First, there is the people living within the State to enact the legislation. Many in the developed world already use firewalls and ad-blocks, thus making this legislation redundant. One may argue that parents and school administrators will be paying less if the government enacts a ban, except what tools are the government to use to stop non-compliant foreigners from disobeying except the tools in use today? Factoring in the misallocations higher levels of governments are infamous for, it would be better for those wanting to protect the children under their care to search the market for appropriate software than for the government to meddle too readily.

Second, there are truly constitutional costs to consider. Should one have a review-of-porn-sites webpage, would it be banned as "advertising" even though the porn sites did not pay that person? Further, advertising even in it"s paid form is made permissible by free speech; should one be willing to post your advertisement, one should be allowed to. The challenge of free speech is not to protect what you agree with, but to protect one"s right to say what one disagrees with.

Which leads to my third point; the market does a lot of strict regulating as it is in this regard. Generally, most sites avoid advertising porn sites precisely because they fear a backlash; whether by angry parents blocking the site or just people saying "not what I wanted to come here for," sites as it is don"t allow porn sites to advertise. Most porn advertising is done on porn sites by those who offer paid content; when a cookie left behind is responsible for the ad, is it really any different from the proverbial child discovering daddy"s stash?

Ultimately, it is the role of the parent and those who act en parentus loco to protect children from porn; however damaging porn may be, it is not nearly as damaging as tobacco, alcohol, and third-world style repressive governments, and it is truly important to keep perspective and priorities in line; we risk much more in attempting to let the government protect us from Pornography than we do in continuing to protect ourselves and keeping the larger levels of government out of it.
Debate Round No. 2


Speaking about your point one, if you talk about it pragmatically it is true that the parents can use software to protect their children but there are many parents who are very ignorant about such things and do not use any kind of software. Right now the more commonly used software is ad block, which only makes up to 300 million people using it out of billions of internet users, which is around 20% only. If these kinds of advertisement are directly regulated by the government everyone can be
protected. speaking of the misallocation higher levels of governments are responsible for, well that is not the case with every government.

Your point 2, speaking of free speech
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. pornographic advertisement is something many people are unwilling to receive,
and therefore cannot be justified on the basis of free speech.

Speaking of point 3, yes most sites do avoid advertising such things, but there are some who do.

Yes, in the long run porn can be more damaging then alcohol , tobacco and third-world style repressive governments.


Thank you Pro for this short debate.

My opponent argues that his ban is necessary due to parental ignorance, small number of total ad block users, the unwillingness of some people to receive porn, and the non-avoidance of some sites in advertising porn. Oh, and Pro waves a hand and makes the traditional problem of government misallocation of wealth disappear; well, no, actually, he does not. [1] Pro, being policy-stater, has the burden of proof, and yet all that he has proven I will not attempt to disprove; the harmful effects of pornography are not important to whether the government needs to be in charge of regulating advertising on the internet.

Pro talks about parental ignorance and in a few breaths later says some people don"t want to receive porn ads. Essentially, because some people in the developed world are a combination of ignorant and in want of an ad block service, they are entitled to a free one by the government. This would not be "free", and the precedent of allowing the government to control what people see on the internet is a very dangerous one to introduce into a country that does not do so yet, especially when considering countries that do. [2] [3]

Lastly, Pro talks about the small amount of ad block users compared to total internet users. Now, what is the market, without government prodding, doing about it? It is advertising the services of ad blockers and firewalls so people can get what they want! The alternative is to tax everybody for a one-size fits all program designed to restrict people"s freedom of speech.

Bringing up freedom of speech again, if a site that is not porn decides to advertise porn, then the administrator of the site is expressing his free speech. If a viewer of the site does not like this, the viewer may complain, tell other people, or no longer visit the site. Considering the negativity bias in humans [4] one can expect people to abandon the site for this behavior.

All Pro has proven is that Porn is harmful, claiming it to be more harmful than tobacco, alcohol, and repressive governments. That is, porn is more harmful than cancer of gums or lungs, the domestic abuse that often results from alcoholism, and such events as the 100 Flowers - Cultural Revolution in China or the strict control exerted on the German population following the rise of Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Pro has certainly proved it is harmful, but the worst case of these other problems is quite a bit worse under most scales of rationality. For these reasons, Pro"s case fails. I rest my case, and urge the voters to vote for the better competitor. Pro, members of the audience, thank you for your time.

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by CrazyCowMan 2 years ago
Lol I'm from Australia, I just wanted to be clear, anyway, someone else has accepted the challenge.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Those words do not need defenitions if you have basic knowledge of english.
Posted by khizr 2 years ago
regulated means : control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

The topic means control the advertisement on the internet by making rules and regulations that does not allow some types of advertisement eg promoting pornography and stuff like that.

By the way from where are you ?
Posted by CrazyCowMan 2 years ago
and as for strictly regulated?
Posted by khizr 2 years ago
Advertisement : a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.

There are some unethical advertisements on the internet promoting pornography, and similar types of advertisements should be outlawed.
Posted by CrazyCowMan 2 years ago
Please define what you mean by "advertisements" and "strictly regulated".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I was surprised as to the tack Pro took in this. Instead of arguing for regulation because of, say, false advertising, he tried to argue it based on an argument that seems to boil down to 'People don't wanna see certain ads'. Such justification seemed insufficient, and Con did a fine job of explaining the harms to free speech, and the lack of necessity given the existence of blocking software to allow people the choice. Pro's point that some people are too lazy and/or ignorant to use that choice did not seem compelling to me. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.