Adverts are evil
Debate Rounds (4)
Pro (Me) must prove that all adverts are evil.
Con (You) must prove that they are not.
This the first round is for acceptance the remain rounds are for debate https://en.wikipedia.org...
I'll accept this debate. The Burden of Proof is shared, and I'll show that advertisements aren't evil. I'll only use this round to provide definitions, though.
Advertisements: a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc. [http://www.dictionary.com...]
Evil: So Pro must show that advertisements are morally wrong. I'll have to show that advertisements are moral. Let's get into this discussion.
Statement: Not 1 single advert is moral. (I hope this suits you give your comment)
Purpose of an Advert: To draw attention to its contents.
How to make an advert: 1. Focus on message, condense refine. 2. Artwork 3. Production. 4. Distribution
Deciding to make an Advert: 1. I/we/entity need 2. Advertise for need, 3. Source distribution
Advertising space: The places real and virtual that entities frequently occupy.
Value of Advertising space: Determined by the number of effective targets.
Advertiser gives to Avert distributor based on targets .
Advertiser gives what? well something distributor wants, e.g. value
Because the value is tied to entities.
This now become an equation similar to
1 idea + value = targets affected
1 idea + value = entity(person) rights x affected
1 idea is a right for entity(person)
1 right + value = affected x right
right + value = affected x right
Okay then... First time I read it, I had trouble following along. Hopefully close examination will help.
Pro starts off by explaning, in a nutshell, how advertisements come to be. We got the product, the story of the ad, then carry out the advertisement. So that's how an advertisement is made.
Then Pro says:
"Advertising space: The places real and virtual that entities frequently occupy.
Value of Advertising space: Determined by the number of effective targets."
By "target" I believe he's referring to buyers. So how will this advertising space come into play?
"Advertiser gives to Avert distributor based on targets .
Advertiser gives what? well something distributor wants, e.g. value"
Products should have value, otherwise, they're insufficient to a buyer, sure.
"1 idea + value = targets affected"
Affected? What do you mean by that? In a negative way? Please expand.
"1 idea + value = entity(person) rights x affected
1 idea is a right for entity(person)"
Rights? So human rights are being affected in the distributing of advertisements? I don't see how. And an idea is a right? I don't really see it. Please expand.
1 right + value = affected x right
right + value = affected x right
then" Then what? You can't cut off your argument like that, it's not even complete!
You probably did research, but I don't think it helped at all. The argument is vague. Because we have an idea, and we want to broadcast it so people buy our products, we're ignoring human rights? In what way? Seeing an advertisement is more boring than anything, not necessarily evil. So they're ignoring the rights of the people carrying out the ads, it seems Pro's suggesting. But in what way? Please elaborate! Too much vagueness is involved, and we can't see your conclusion, since you forgot to add it.
The Burden of Proof is shared, so not only do I have to show that Pro's wrong, but I have to show that advertisements are indeed moral. This won't be a problem. All we need to do is take a look at Utilitarianism.
What is Utilitarainism? This is a philosophy founded by John Stuart Mill, suggesting that something is good as it promoted happiness, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness. It's also something that many debaters on this site use to discuss whether something is moral.
Let's tie this into why advertisements are moral.
Point 1: Customers.
You've probably seen many different advertisements; for food, pesticide, video games, clothing, many things like that. There are 3 ways you would know about, say, an Ever Brite, a motion sensing light. 1) You've seen an advertisement, 2) Someone told you about it, 3) You saw it at a store. The friend could know about the product via the same 3 ways.
So we know that the Ever Brite exists. But just seeing it at a store isn't sufficient to warrant a purchase. How about seeing the advertisement, the likely scenario of knowing it exists. It demonstrates that it could be useful, causing you to buy it. Having a light around outside is really useful, which makes you glad you bought it. This is where Utilitarianism comes into play. Because I'm happy I got an Ever Brite, it makes it moral.
Point 2: The company, and happiness cycle.
Chances are, you bought that new KFC chicken sandwich. You gave them money. What do they do with the money? Well, Utilitarianism, they're happy. But it also allows them to continue making their products. They get profit, allowing them to have sufficient money for more chicken for us, more money for them, more chicken for us.
It's a cycle of happiness. We give to them, they give to us. It's not just KFC or Ever Brite, either. Game companies also share this cycle. Nintendo makes video games, we buy them, they make more video games. Utilitarianism states this is a moral cycle, since it promotes happiness.
A framework is always important, especially having something to measure whether something is moral, or immoral. I suggest Utilitarianism as the framework Pro and Con should use, since it's a pretty good one that everybody uses on the site. To keep it fair, I won't do research, while I allow Pro to research as much as he needs. Anyways, back to you.
Do advertisements promote happiness?
As a debate - I lose because of this.
CON kindly continued, thank you.
CON supports PRO's arguments leading up to "Rights? So human rights are being affected in the distributing of advertisements?"
Yes - entity(human) rights. Specifically but not limited to, the right of having ideas, the right to communicate and the right of privacy
right + value = affected x right
To continue"".. for where I rudely stopped.
value = (affected x right) / right (the number of rights being affect by just one right).
value = the number of rights being affect by just one right.
It is the fact as the equation is "value" on one side a rights on the other that makes the statement "Adverts are evil" to be true.
Why because unless this "value" itself, is value to all entity(Human) it is not moral.
Pro has avoided specifying the "value" as PRO has considered a wide range of "Advertising" this includes, but not confined to
1. Commercial (the main substance of my opponents argument)
2. Charity - Oxfam and the like
3. Government - Drink driving, road safety
4. Non averting entities that advertises (e.g.- newspapers, TV) etc.
As seen this "value" includes many more things then "money". However PRO will make the following, a money example, however PRO encourages the reader to use as many references as possible, substituting "money" for "value".
money = the number of rights being affect by just one right.
I my opinion, very ugly, because it shows that, money is the power force enabling 1 right to interfere with many rights.
Also consider, in the exchange of "value" is between entities(people/business), there must be a mutual agreement that it is indeed "value".
The use of target, was simply a way of showing 1 item, selected from many. When applied in advertising this target is an entity(person/business). Which when considered, provides that "advertising" targets are "people" or "advertising" preys on people. Consider the cheetah hunting, the are many prey, the best prey from the cheetah's point of view, is the easiest one that will provide dinner so this becomes the target.
CON makes a very well presented argument (I like the layout, I must do better).
CON clearly shows the process of advertising and a view of its success in moral benefits. However, CON claimed a point of view "Utilitarianism" from the field of Philosophy, and provides a short, snappy description. CON does not however, offer any supporting information - https://en.wikipedia.org... Philosophy:,https://en.wikipedia.org... Utilitarianism.
The field of Philosophy covers every aspect of the human condition, with sub-branches in the sciences and other areas of human endeavour. This field provides for many points of view and describes them thoroughly. Through a process of learned debate the field of Philosophy has established it"s knowledge.
It is faulty thinking that leads entities to define themselves or others with limiting labels. However this type of thinking is CON has done.
Loosely considered and applied points of view will always lead to misunderstanding.
"Utilitarianism" has/is seen a valuable point of view as it provides for an easy(ish) computation providing for the best moral outcome. As such it has being functioning in the world for sometime (over 100 years) and due to it relate ease of use. Many without knowledge of "Utilitarianism" will find it is very similar to how they, themselves think and also the society around them think. Advertising is a concept born out of the society of its time which was largely "Utilitarian". Therefore it is not surprising it is seen to be moral from that same point of view.
Other points of view from Philosophy
Fallibilism: (https://en.wikipedia.org...) " provides that all entities are fallible. This is not a moral judgement merely an observable fact.
Therefore just because an idea is believed to be of value to the mind that conceives it, that idea maybe based on faulty thinking. Hence the need to take all ideas and test them before application.
Morality: (https://en.wikipedia.org...) " PRO"s states that this at the centre of this discussion.
PRO has tried to avoid using any inappropriate or discursive "Labels" in to this debate and will continue to do so. This is one of the reasons why PRO"s argument"s may be awkward (as in the "awkwardness of youth"), of course all the others are due to the inherent fallibility of entities(people).
If an entity accepts it"s inherent fallibility while still striving to over come it, that is right thinking.
When ideas are looked at with limiting points of view that idea is only valid from that point of view.
Any point of view on morality requires an all inclusive point of view.
Any time an idea is forced on another entities(person) consciousness, there is a breach of right.
An untested (by moral standards) idea when forced on another entity(person). That entity(person) is exposed to an idea that carries no moral certitude.
Moral certitude cannot be established by any other entity other than Humanity which is an all inclusive idea and word for people. At this time the is no knowledge that I know of other than Philosophy the can help derive/describe Humanity in terms of moral certitude.
PRO has now proven that there is no currently available true(moral) answer to "Adverts are evil" as there is no current authority that speaks for Humanity..
PRO states when "value" creates a humanitarian calculation of "one over many", that calculation needs to be morally correct. To ensure moral correctness, the "value" needs to be correct and that the idea(or anything else) given(forced) that is powered by that "value" is correct as well.
PRO states that advertising purpose is to put information in a place that is accessible to as many willing recipients as possible. However does not consider the affect of that information on UN-willing recipients. To me morally unforgivable, hence evil.
PRO the fact that software exists to prevent adverts from being seen and that this software is both free and widely used. Show that many UN-willing recipients of advertising are doing something about it.
PRO an idea that is fundamental to advertising but not obvious is: entities(people) do not look for the knowledge they need. This when translated rather rudely is: entities(people) are lazy.
PRO the only form of advertising that can be excluded from this discussion is "self" advertising, such as shouting and covering something with your own expressions (that you own) - (not full list). This translates into things like, a shop full of advertising aimed so the shop can improve itself. An artists painting, sculpture and Muhammad Ali and his outrageous bragging (after all, it brought his opponents to him)
CON please continue to report on my short comings in the nobel art of debating. From that I learn a most important skill.
Readers I am not skilled enough to take on the world (my intention).
I thank Pro for continuing. We'll examine his arguments in more detail.
"Specifically but not limited to, the right of having ideas, the right to communicate and the right of privacy" So what you're saying is that the makers of the ad disagree on what the presentation should be, thus aren't able to have their ideas respected? You need to prove that the ideas are being disrespected if that's the case.
"right + value = affected x right
It is the fact as the equation is "value" on one side a rights on the other that makes the statement "Adverts are evil" to be true."
So Human rights with the value of ad = Customers affected multiplied by Human rights? What does this mean?
"Why because unless this "value" itself, is value to all entity(Human) it is not moral."
So I must find value in something to make it moral? I don't care about rocks, but does that make them immoral? It would only be immoral if it did something, which it doesn't do anything. This assumption is wrong.
"As seen this "value" includes many more things then "money". However PRO will make the following, a money example, however PRO encourages the reader to use as many references as possible, substituting "money" for "value"."
Okay. McDonalds is moral, since their advertisements let me know that they have good food, which food is essential to life. Thus, McDonalds has value in something other than making profit. Nintendo has value because I know that they're making new video games for my enjoyment. Various companies make products to make our lives easier. There's value there. None of this is really undermining human values, though.
"money = the number of rights being affect by just one right." I have 5 dollars. Whose rights am I ingoring by having money?
"money is the power force enabling 1 right to interfere with many rights" I think my opponent is suggesting that we have to pay for things. But recall the resolution is "Advertisements are evil". We're not forced to buy anything just because we watched it. We have the freedom of choice, and we can choose to buy Paper Mario: Color Splash. We can choose not to.
And 1 right is interfering with multiple rights? What?
"Also consider, in the exchange of "value" is between entities(people/business), there must be a mutual agreement that it is indeed "value"."
In exchanging values, we must form an agreement that is values. What? This makes no sense.
"Which when considered, provides that "advertising" targets are "people" or "advertising" preys on people. Consider the cheetah hunting, the are many prey" This anology does make sense, but looking deeper, it's not the exact same.
When the cheetah hunts the gazelle, the gazelle is forced to be eaten, and doesn't have a choice (though it could run away). As for a company to a customer, the cutomer has a choice: Do I want the Big Mac or not? No one's forcing the customer to eat a Big Mac, unlike the gazelle, whom has little choice. Sure, the gazelle could be injured as to a customer loving Big Macs, but the choice is still there. The anology fails.
"CON does not however, offer any supporting information [on Utilitarainism]" Well, Pro provided one for me.
"It is faulty thinking that leads entities to define themselves or others with limiting labels. However this type of thinking is CON has done." So if Utilitarainism isn't the greatest happines, what is it?
""Utilitarianism" has/is seen a valuable point of view as it provides for an easy(ish) computation providing for the best moral outcome. As such it has being functioning in the world for sometime (over 100 years) and due to it relate ease of use." Which is why I chose it. Actions are moral if they promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness. It's a simple way to check whether a thing is moral.
"Therefore just because an idea is believed to be of value to the mind that conceives it, that idea maybe based on faulty thinking. Hence the need to take all ideas and test them before application." So Utilitarainism "may" be faulty? You can't say my moral framework "may" be faulty. You must show that it is indeed faulty, and clearly present the ultimate flaw.
Also, Pro has dropped my main argument, which states that the advertisements create a cycle of happiness, thus making them moral.
Rebuttal against a few Conclusions:
"PRO has tried to avoid using any inappropriate or discursive "Labels" in to this debate and will continue to do so."
According to Pro's wikipedia page on Utilitarainism: "Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well-being of sentient entities." I do not see how I misinterpreted Utilitarainsim, like Pro's suggesting.
"Any time an idea is forced on another entities(person) consciousness, there is a breach of right."
So if an idea is forced upon me, the broadcaster of the idea is immoral? This framework Pro's presenting is contradictory. The very idea of ideas being forced upon people, is forced upon people. I was not expecting this, so the framework is being forced onto my consciousness, thus should be considered immoral.
If the moral framework is immoral, then what are we going to do? As Pro did say, we need to test ideas before applying them. The very framework Pro presented is immoral, as it's doing exactly what it states is immoral! It failed the validity test, we should abandon this thinking.
As for the Utilitarainism test... which increases happiness: murder, or giving someone flowers? Flowers make people happy, and should be considered moral.
I agree that we should test moral systems. Pro's failed, since it claimed itself was immoral, which shouldn't be the case. Utilitarainism says that things are good when they make people happy. Advertisements allow us to see something we like, and then we can choose to buy the product. When we buy the product, the company gains money, which allows them to continue creating more products for our happiness. As I keep saying, this is a cycle of happiness, thus is completely moral.
PRO has made a progressive case based on basic human rights. These are the rights, you have had since you were born. One right we all have is to speak, notice: not SHOUT, just speak. Another is privacy of mind.
This is PRO's voice on paper. No one has been FORCED into reading this content. You are here, because you chose (and are still). CON chose to expose himself to the force of my ideas, as they, like I stated, need to be tested and this is the correct testing method (combat ground).
CON exclusively focuses on "Utilitarainsim", for that is CON's chosen world stance. It is not even spelt correctly, it is Utilitarianism.
CON tries to obscure the simple, deductive process, that yields a basic equation "And 1 right is interfering with multiple rights?". CON says "What?", so, I say if a man was given a gun, that is a "man plus value(gun)", that man shoots a lot of people, they are dead, that is lose of right. Now this is extreme but it clearly demonstrates an immoral(evil) outcome, when one idea(the man's) plus value(gun) is FORCED on others.
So, here I will look at "McDonalds" and CON's "cycle of happiness".
McDonalds is a business entity, it makes decisions that ensures its survival, much like humans.
McDonalds forms the idea, that, people can go to the shop and buy food themselves. This threatens McDonalds because customers would not want their much more expensive food so they would not make money.
They go to extra-ordinary lengths to make the most perfect looking example of their food and take the clearest pictures possible. Then pay large amounts of money and fill other people's views with this wondrous food.
Then weak the minded have the consciousness filled with this delight, they flock to McDonalds and get served with, what a best could be called a modest meal. They hand over their money without thinking they could have purchased more nutritious food for less money and had a modest meal.
It looks to me that CON's "cycle of happiness" belongs to McDonalds! While that is happening, the strong minded are subjected to these images, they know are not real, they have tried McDonalds "food".
Of course Utilitarian process viewed by a Utilitarian will be seen to be good. However the fact that Utilitarianism is a subset of ALL people. There are many other points of view but focusing on very basic human rights makes things much clearer.
By basic reasoning "money = the number of rights being affect by just one right" is a true statement, that can be applied to all adverts. As more human rights are being affected (bombarded by unwanted images) by the application of money and only one human right is up held, this is immoral by utilitarian standard as well as any other.
If you look for understanding with a rigid mind, then don't expect to absorb it.
The statement - Adverts are evil - stands.
I thank Pro for posting his final argument, as well as making things clearer for me. Let's delve into Rebuttals first.
"No one has been FORCED into reading this content. You are here, because you chose (and are still)." The same could be said with ads. You chose to go to that TV or website or magazine, and ads are there, much like I went to this site, and I saw Pro's assumption.
It's not forced like a burglar coming into my house, and forcing me to give him my belongings. It's more like being forced to be searched when you want to board an airplane.
"CON chose to expose himself to the force of my ideas, as they, like I stated, need to be tested and this is the correct testing method (combat ground)."
True. I chose to take your ideas into consideration, just like I choose to take advertisements into consideration. Now that I think about it, you don't have to watch advertisements. You could just leave the room, or play video games, or refute your opponent's logic.
In conclusion, you're forced to see an ad as much as you're forced to see my profile picture. Or pretty much everything.
Rights vs Happiness:
Pro is reffering to unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [Better source this]. Note the "pursuit of happiness" part. That's Utilitarianism. Although I've been talking about actions, this actually fits well. One might act to increase their own happiness, which will be discussed later on.
Now what about the right to life? Simply put, everybody should live. I concede this is a right, but not relevant, becuse advertisements aren't threatening anyone's life.
What's liberty? The right to freedom; freedom of choice, freedom of expression, etc. This is my opponent's main argument. But, like I said earlier, my opponent's argument is as forced as an advertisement. I chose to go to this debate as I choose to watch TV. If my opponent is not immoral, then advertisements aren't immoral either.
Life is made out of decisions. I can choose to go outside. I can choose to refute my opponent's arguments. I can choose to turn on the TV. I can choose to play Super Mario Maker. I can choose to go to McDonald's. If a burglar breaks into my house, I can choose to not give him the money. Freedom of choice is practically untouchable.
What about freedom of expression? Advertisements don't make us dress a certain way, or keep us from discussing the Bible.
What about freedom to ourselves (slavery). Advertisements aren't making us slaves or anything like that.
Therfore, advertisements are not immoral in the slightest.
Validity of Utilirarianism:
Sorry for the misspelling. It's a weird word. Anyways, I think Pro dropped his rebuttal against Utilitarianism itself.
"They go to extra-ordinary lengths to make the most perfect looking example of their food and take the clearest pictures possible. Then pay large amounts of money and fill other people's views with this wondrous food."
I could see that. After all, the cycle won't start if the customer refuses the product.
"They hand over their money without thinking they could have purchased more nutritious food for less money and had a modest meal."
Sure, I could choose to have Subway's rather than McDonald's. But I still have that choice. Sure, McDonald's tastes better than Subway's. It's still my choice to have McDonald's.
"It looks to me that CON's "cycle of happiness" belongs to McDonalds!"
It does. But it's also shared with the customers. Are you saying, despite all the advertising McDonald's does, with the Big Macs, and the cooking, and the customers aren't pleased? Why do you think McDonald's is successful? They get money from making good food. The good food makes us happy, so we come back, so they get more money, the food makes us happy, so we come back... this is the cycle of happiness. Pro dropped the point about the customers; my first point.
"While that is happening, the strong minded are subjected to these images" They saw it.
"they know are not real" I don't see how the Big Mac is a fraud.
"they have tried McDonalds "food"" So you don't like McDonald's? Well the majority of people like McDonald's, and those people are what keep the cycle going.
Rebuttals to Conclusions:
"However the fact that Utilitarianism is a subset of ALL people"
Precisely. Where have I neglected anyone in my argument? If you look in Round 2, I discussed how both customers and the company are in the happinesss cycle. The customers are happy because they recieved the product, and the company because they recieved money. This money allows (and also, encourages) the company to continue making products.
"By basic reasoning "money = the number of rights being affect by just one right" is a true statement, that can be applied to all adverts" I have a habit of gathering information, and unleashing everything in the final round. Anyways, Since I pointed it out, which right exactly is being violated?
"As more human rights are being affected (bombarded by unwanted images)" Hey, I want to watch those advertisements as much as I want to deal with a someone who abandons debates. And as I've discussed, we're not 100% forced to watch ads.
"by the application of money and only one human right is up held" I do see what Pro's saying. Violating freedom of choice (not really the case), and pursuit of happiness (depends on whether or not you dislike the ad).
"this is immoral by utilitarian standard as well as any other." But chances are, you heard of the Big Mac from advertising. Maybe on a sign, or TV. Seeing the advertisement makes you want to buy a Big Mac, thus starts the happiness cycle.
Pro tried to straw man (misinterpreting my argument, and refuting the misinterpretation) my happiness cycle. He focused solely on the company, but neglected the whole other half of it; the customers are also happy. I've presented the flaw in the rebuttal, and defended myself. So my arguments stand.
Pro now has a perfectly clear argument. He says advertisements hinder our human rights by forcing the idea upon them. I said that, under this logic, Pro's ideas were also immoral. Pro corrected me, saying that I chose to go to this site. I concede to that, but he put himself in a bigger pickle, since that removes the immorality of advertisements, since I chose to watch that advertisement.
My happiness cycle argument was the biggest wrench in Pro's position. If the advertisements promote happiness, they must be moral. This can't really be argued against. Intentions are irrelevant, only happiness is reelvant. Vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.