The Instigator
THEENDOFTIME
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Generic
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Is the way Women are Portrayed in Commercials Okay?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Generic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 48433
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

THEENDOFTIME

Con

I don't believe the way women are used as a an object of desire in today's society in commercials or television is correct using them as nothing but a sexual object to sell a product is wrong.
Generic

Pro

Whereas I believe that the way that women are portrayed in commercials is entirely acceptable, as it is an expression of free speech, clearly in the public interest (hence the popularity of female figures in advertising), and that arguments to the contrary ignore the practical reality of advertising.
Debate Round No. 1
THEENDOFTIME

Con

Well this is withing the thought that when you use something like a woman to be used in that sort of way or venue with a commercial for one it doesn't help sell the product unless the person viewing is a moron and it makes the public eyes viewing of women nothing more than something to shag but yes the freedom of speech thing I'm all for freedom of speech but once your starting to hurt a viewing of something like a gender cause look at music videos,commercials, and other forms of media using women as nothing but sexual objects and if a man was being used in this way i would call it out to if they were being objectified but they aren't its all women who get used
Generic

Pro

Con makes a good point. I mean, only a moron would make a judgement on whether or not to buy a product based on the women in its advertisements, right?

Right?

Not quite. The role of an advert is to get attention. It"s to find people who might want to buy a product, and to say to them; "Here we are. Come and get it". And it works. People are happy because they find products they want to buy, and companies are happy because they"re making things which are being bought. So, where do women enter all of this?

Well, for those who"ve missed it, life in every western country is conducted under this system known as "Capitalism". Not the best for equality, but it"s great for innovation, personal freedom, and getting stuff to people who want it. In this system, if a company cannot keep up with its rivals, it goes bust. This applies to advertising. Adverts feature women in the way they do because people want them to. If they didn"t, many would go broke, jobs would be lost, a sector of an industry shut down, and that vital link between producer and consumer damaged. That"s the way it goes, and if you have an objection to the way women are portrayed in advertising it may be better to criticize humanity itself for being interested in that sort of thing.

That"s argument number one.

Argument number two. Con claims that "if a man was being used in this way i would call it out to if they were being objectified". Now, sorry if I misinterpret, but it seems to me that what you"re essentially saying is that if men were objectified in this way there would be a public uproar, correct? If so, here.

That is the address of one of the most successful adverts of the modern age. Old Spice. It features a semi-naked man in a sexualised situation addressing the " presumably female " audience as if they have already objectified him " which, by the advert"s popularity, I assume they have. Uproar?
Not a discontented yelp.
Advertising success?
Legendary.

Argument number three. The last I will introduce on my behalf.

Free speech. Enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights, the United Nation"s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and won after centuries of press regulation, oppression and war.

If I were a person with a higher cheesiness tolerance, I might argue that people have fought and died for the cause of free speech, and you"re willing to throw it away over what? Adverts?

But I am not such a person, and I won"t make that argument. What I will argue is this: once you have a board of censorship in order to decide what people can and can"t watch on television, there"s only two ways it can go. Up, back to where we are now. Or downhill, with further censorship, government control, and propaganda.
Free speech doesn"t come in halves.

And, finally, believe it or not, I am a feminist. I believe that women should have equal opportunities to men. I believe that women should have equal pay to men. And yes, I believe that women should have equal access to government and power. I do not believe in censorship. If there is an issue here, then it is that human beings as a species are constantly on the lookout for a potential mate.

People don"t want something because it"s there. It"s there because they want it.
Debate Round No. 2
THEENDOFTIME

Con

Alright you win XD damn
Generic

Pro

Thanks ;-)
I probably spent more time on this than I should have.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LAZARUS77 2 years ago
LAZARUS77
The funny thing is this mostly happening in the christain world, meaning europe or america... in the bible jesus says:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

opening TV, newspapers anything you can imagine the stuff that runs the world is women.everybody enjoying themselves and ignoring thier God jesus doing whatever they like... there is no christain country obeying what Jesus said.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 2 years ago
judeifeanyi
THEENDOFTIMEGenericTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won the debate
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
THEENDOFTIMEGenericTied
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: Con concedes
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
THEENDOFTIMEGenericTied
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: Con concedes in the final round.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
THEENDOFTIMEGenericTied
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: Concession.