The Instigator
DevDave
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should celebrities be held responsible for misleading advertisements

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 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,737 times Debate No: 45448
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

DevDave

Pro

I believe that celebrities should be help responsible because they are role for a vast set of audience. As a role model it is the duty of the celebrity to only advertise those products which he would have purchased if he was watching the ad.

It is also unethical for a celebrity to promote products through a misleading advertisement. Lakhs of people purchase a seeing a celebrity endorsement. These people purchase a product because of the faith they have on the celebirty who is endorsing the product. By promoting a misleading advertisement celebrity is deceiving the trust rendered by the people.
imabench

Con

If its the company that is advertising the product in a misleading way then it is the company that should be held responsible for being misleading, not the celebrity....

Its not the duty of the celebrity to know inside-and-out if the product they are advertising is in any-way misleading, nor are they the ones to blame if the product is indeed misleading in some way. If anything the company advertising the bad product are also trying to mislead people by using a celebrity endorsement to dupe people, making them double responsible for screwing over consumers.
Debate Round No. 1
DevDave

Pro

If celebrities earn millions of dollars by endorsing a particular brand then they should be held responsible too if someone is affected by misleading advertisements. The money which a brand is paying to the brand ambassador is out of the revenue which the company will earn in future when people purchase the product. So in the same way a brand ambassador is benefitting through the revenue earned he should be held liable for any suffering caused to any of the customers purchasing the product.
imabench

Con

"If celebrities earn millions of dollars by endorsing a particular brand then they should be held responsible too if someone is affected by misleading advertisements"

But why though, they werent the ones who knowingly duped consumers into buying a faulty product, thats the company that made the product's fault.



" So in the same way a brand ambassador is benefitting through the revenue earned he should be held liable for any suffering caused to any of the customers purchasing the product."

Recycling the same dumb and illogical opinion over and over isnt a real argument pro. Just because the person benefitting from the ads is connected to the product, that doesnt mean they know if it is faulty and are still endorsing it anyways.

The simple truth is that if a product proves faulty, the company that made the product is the only one in the equation who should be held responsible for trying to pass off a bad product. Celebrity endorsers are a third party that are sued by the company making the product to try to market it to consumers.

All blame for a bad product eventually points back to the company that made the bad product in the first place, not the celebrity that the same company also tricked into marketing the product.....

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
DevDaveimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro... Con, you didn't have to throw an insult in there, it was unnecessary. As for the debate as a whole, I think Pro could have won this if he had taken the stance that celebrities should be held socially responsible rather than financially, and that the company should be held most responsible while the celebrity should be held only partially so. As it was, this interpretation of the topic easily led to Con's providing a more effective alternative.
Vote Placed by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
DevDaveimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by Con as he actually refuted his opponents case... Better conduct to Pro as he didn't insult Con. Condolences to Pro, congratulations to Con.