Advertisements do more harm than good
Debate Rounds (4)
Children are most open to advertisements, because they are most open to envy and other emotions. Unlike working adults, they have not yet matured, and it's the parent's job to help them mature mentally, and emotionally, it is the company's job to promote, and sell their product.
Through out this debate I will focus on how Small businesses rely on advertisements, and how advertisements are not at fault for envy.
My opponent has made the claim that "the company's job to promote and sell their product" has no relevance to the debate, however is just as every bit as relevant as the child's role in the debate. A salesman's job is to sell the product. If a salesman tells you, "buy X-deodorant is smells like x" but than says, "it leaves a messy stain on your clothes", how many people will buy the product?
To the same degree, say they just came out with a toothpaste capable of restoring tooth enamel, how any would buy the toothpaste over their current brand, let alone know it can restore enamel, unless they advertise the new product?
No offense intended but my opponent seem to have the idea children are incapable of resisting advertisements, while at the same time being financially dependent enough to be the one writing the check. As I stated before, envy is a survival mechanism in all primates, advertisements only play on preexisting sentiments, thus the only problem would be a fiscal one. I have never met someone who started smoking because of a mascot, I have met someone who have started smoking because of a PSA telling them not to smoke. Children are defiant, and what they perceive as "cool" more has to do with peers, than it has to do with the media. Peers did not get the idea of what's cool from advertisements either, more or less they got the idea from watching role models do it; for example an older brother, an uncle, or someone they see on the street who looks and acts "cool".
They are not fully matured until 21, and because of that they are more perceptive to envy, lust, and anger but they outgrow that, just as they outgrow crying in a store, or yelling in a movie theater.
I look forward to seeing your counter argument.
Also advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all.
Plus many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low-self esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Thank you for such a good debate and I look forward to what you say next.
When I speak of flyers which my opponent has agreed is a cheap source of advertisements, I am not speaking of the flyers in the mail, I am talking about the flyers on lamp posts, that people see when on the side walk. Or flyers handed out in front of the store or restaurant.
My opponent has tried to draw a connection between increase in advertisement and increase in discontent, but discontent usually is a result of changes in society, rather than changes in what we buy. For example happiness in 1960's plummeted due to the Vietnam war, and growing discontent, we remained about the same since the 1970's, but we are slightly less unhappy than in the 1970's because of the gradual decline. After the Vietnam war in 1975, happiness gradually increased until the Early 1980s recession, which lead to a gradual decline. We also had a decline of happiness from the Early 1990s recession, the Early 2000s recession, and the Late-2000s recession. In other words, happiness is related to the state of the economy, not the production of advertisements.
My opponent claims that, "Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead.". That does not change with a reduction of advertisements, in fact advertisements inform the consumer about the product. Without advertisements less people would know about the better product. Let's say 30 people buy flip phones, while 70 people buy I-phones, without advertisements, 50 would buy I-phones, and 50 would buy flip phones, because 20 people didn't hear about the features of the I-phone. Now when those 20 people see the people with the I-phone, they would become upset that they did not opt for the I-phone over their flip phone.
My opponent has tried to draw connections between advertisements and the fascination with Skinny models, but the fact of the matter is, the advertisers already play on per-existing sentiments. Centuries ago being over weight was a sign of beauty because it was a sign of wealth, and advertisers used the idea of beauty of the time to sell items. In 19th century a hour glass shape was seen as beautiful by society, and advertisers again used society's idea of beauty to sell products. In more recent years skinny is seen as beautiful, so advertisers, use what SOCIETY has said is beautiful, in order to SELL products. If 80% of people decided to go out and get dread locks, than a month later an actor decides to go along with the fad, would you believe the actor started the fad, or would you believe he hopped on the band wagon?
The fact of the matter is, Advertisements are meant to SELL products. Selling the product means they have to APPEAL to society. In order for advertisements to appeal to society they need to use the per-existing ideals SOCIETY has created, and they must be able to use PER-EXISTING sentiments to their advantage.
melorules forfeited this round.
Advertisements do more good, than harm.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con that advertisements are not at fault for "envy". People can think for themselves. The problem I have with advertisements are misrepresentations. If you see that a product has 0g trans fat but it actually does have about 0.4g trans fat, I don't like that. Even 1g of trans fat is harmful to health and using loopholes in the law to put false advertisements is BS. RFD is obvious due to forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.