The Instigator
billboard
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

Television advertising aimed directly at children should be banned or 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 15,682 times Debate No: 3006
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (19)

 

billboard

Pro

"Give me a child from any background and I'll turn him into anything you want- a scientist, politician, or even a criminal." - American psychologist Edward Chance Tolman. "These methods are used today by advertisers to turn children into consumers."
According to catholiceducation.org, the average American child ages 2-11 watches 1,197 minutes of television each week. That is almost 20 hours of television! In those 20 hours, kids age 2-11 see approximately 140 food advertisements. In a year, children ages 2-11 watch about 1,040 hours of television and see about 7,280 food advertisements.

There are many important reasons why television advertising directed at kids needs to be regulated.

Reason:

1. Research has confirmed that the media shows a close conformity between children's tastes, perceived needs, actions, and the programs they watch.

� About four years ago, a 7 year old girl drowned trying to find Bikini Bottom (SpongeBob Squarepants) in the ocean. In another unrelated event, a few kids jumped off of buildings in an attempt to fly like the fictional hero Superman. Both accounts resulted in the death of all involved.

� If children allow themselves to believe in talking sea creatures and flying human beings merely from watching television programs, one may conclude that children will believe that, for example, the energy drink Red Bull really does give you wings. Therefore, they will also be easily persuaded to buy certain products that are advertised during their favorite shows.

2. Some children don't understand that advertisers are only trying to get them to buy their products.

� According to AAP ( American Academy of Pediatrics) children under the age of 8 are developmentally unable to understand the intent of ads and simply accept them as true.

3. Even in learning environments, children are exposed to advertisements from a very young age.

� According to Mediachannel.org, 70% of child care centers use television on a typical day.

� Channel 1 news broadcast is free to schools who promise students will watch commercials. 42% of channel 1's 12 minute broadcast is ads and fillers. The teen audience for channel 1 is 50 times greater than the MTV audience. From kidshealth.org

4. Television is the main point in a young child's life and a good percentage of airtime is spent on advertisements.

� Children in the U.S. spend more time watching television than any other activity, including attending school. The only activity that a child does more than watching television is sleeping. In a year, a child spends about 900 hours at school and around 1,150 hours watching television.-Kidshealth.org

� Every 4 hours of television contain over 100 commercials. ( Minn. Star Tribune.)

� Even children as little as 1 year old watch about 6 hours of television per week. 54% of 4-6 year olds chose to watch more television instead of spending time with their fathers. (Catholiceducation.org)

5. A good percent of advertisements directed at children are for unhealthy food products.

� 11 out of 19 commercials per hour are about food. This averages to about 1 food commercial every five minutes. 43.6% of these commercials are for fats, oils, and sweets. Fast food is 11% of ads during children's television and none of these are for the "healthy" options.-Theprenentioninstitute.org
Korezaan

Con

I negate, "Television advertising aimed directly at children should be banned or regulated".

I'd like to point out that her case is about "regulation". She can't go for "banning" in either of her next two rounds because that would be a shifting advocacy.

""Give me a child from any background and I'll turn him into anything you want- a scientist, politician, or even a criminal.""

If, after reading this quote, you think that all psychologists think like this, DON'T. The reasoning this psychologist is using a BRANCH of psychology called "behaviorism", which states that people are born as blank slates and like slates, parents, teachers, and pratically anyone can "write" on your brain and shape your personality.

But I have another response to this. Since my opponent's link to the topic, ‘that we should regulate and ban advertisements', is that "advertising does this to children", as long as I take out the link you cannot go PRO. Steven Pinker writes,

(Pinker, Steven. Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature", Penguin Books, 2002. Pg. x)

"[…T]he malleability of the human psyche: that little boys quarrel and fight because they are encouraged to do so; that children enjoy sweets because their parents use them as a reward for eating vegetables; that teenagers get the idea to compete in looks and fashion from spelling bees and academic prizes; that men think the goal of sex is an orgasm because of the way they were socialized. The problem is not just that these claims are preposterous but that the writers did not acknowledge they were saying things that common sense might call into question[…]That mentality cannot coexist with an esteem for truth, and I believe it is responsible for some of the unfortunate trends in recent intellectual life. One trend is a stated contempt among many scholars for the concepts of truth, logic, and evidence[…]The theory that parents can mold their children like clay has inflicted childrearing regimes on parents that are unnatural and sometimes cruel. It has distorted choices faced by mothers as they try to balance their lives, and multiplied the anguish of parents whose children haven't turned out the way they have hoped. The belief that human tastes are reversible cultural preferences has led to social planners to write off people's enjoyment of ornament, natural life, and human scale and force millions of people to live in drab cement boxes. The romantic notion that all evil is a product of society has justified the release of dangerous psychopaths who promptly murdered innocent people. And the conviction that humanity could be reshaped by massive social engineering programs led to some of the greatest atrocities in human history."

And that's exactly the PRO's position: That we can reshape children by just regulating the advertisements. By the way, she doesn't explain how we're going to know what's directed at children and what's not, and she also doesn't explain how we know when advertisements are "over the line" or not, and she ALSO doesn't explain how we're going to do it and what we're going to do when we "regulate" them, NOR what criteria it must meet. At that point, the PRO could be supporting government propaganda, which links directly back into Pinker's criticism.

"According to catholiceducation.org, the average American child[...]"

1) What's an "average child"?
2) Not a reliable source; this doesn't even separate education from religion. Give me BBC or something.
3) How many children were surveyed?
4) Please give me the exact URL.

OVERVIEW 1: She assumes that all children think in a certain way. This will never be true, as you can never make a blanket statement about how people think; we can't just assume that if given X Y and Z then people, or rather, children, will respond in A B and C ways. Refer to Pinker for more analysis.

OVERVIEW 2: Statistics that don't give how many people surveyed, who was surveyed, and what time the survey was taken can't be taken as true. For example, I could go to Baskin Robins and ask the two people sitting outside who happen to be eating chocolate ice cream cones, "Is chocolate the best tasting flavor?", they say "yes". Well, the survey showed that 100% of people surveyed said that chocolate was the best flavor! Psh. Even though that statement is true, it's ridiculous to apply it to anything else until the statistics on the background of the survey is given.

Line by line.

1) Anecdotal evidence without citation. Double fallacy.
a- 1. How do we know that these children did this in reaction to TV?
2. Please give me a citation.
3. No link to topic. Spongebob and Superman are TV SHOWS.
4. This can be solved by having better parents.
b- 1. "One may conclude that children will believe that" this is ridiculous.
1b. I don't conclude that.
2. Under this line of reasoning, we should censor absolutely everything on TV because children don't only watch TV ‘aimed' at children! BTW this also links to everything else in her case, as we don't know what exactly is "aimed" at children. There's no way to determine intent in anything.

2) So what? There's always going to be people that don't get it.

3) Then don't put them in a "learning environment". Problem solved.
a- 1. I don't get a "Channel 1" on my TV. What is it?
2. Please give me the exact numbers.
2b. And URL while you're at it.

4) It isn't in my life. I don't watch TV at all.
a- 1. Exact URL please.
b- 1. Funny how this evidence here talks about TV in general, not "TV aimed at children". Nontopical.
c- 1. Not a reliable source; this doesn't even separate education from religion. Give me BBC or something.
2. That's not a reason to vote PRO. I didn't like my father, but it wasn't because I watched TV, it's just because he really sucked at being a nice person compared to my mom.

5) Lol, this one doesn't even tell us what the number of percentage is.
a- My browser cannot find this web page. Screenshot it for me will you?

SHORT FORM (not in order):

-Her link to affirming is Behaviorism. She's being hypocritical by using behaviorism in order to do exactly what she's saying advertising is doing, which CAN lead to many bad things but i CAN'T tell you exactly what cause she
-Doesn't specify what she's going to do
-Doesn't specify what's "advertising aimed at children"
-Doesn't specify what's "over the line" and what isn't
-Thinks all people think the same way and that going PRO changes things
-Statistics aren't reliable until certain conditions are met; none of her statistics meet all of the criteria
-Doesn't prove how her tragedies were as a direct result of advertising.
-Problems can be solved in a different way.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
billboard

Pro

billboard forfeited this round.
Korezaan

Con

I await my opponent's defense of her case.

Extend all of my arguments and responses from R1; they stand until they are refuted.
Debate Round No. 2
billboard

Pro

billboard forfeited this round.
Korezaan

Con

Since no refutations have been made, every argument I present in the R1 still stands. Because she has failed to affirm,

you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Maybe some pedophiles are voting based on her picture.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
wow are you people serious? She did no debating and you're still giving her the votes?
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"let" implies that the result is true and absolute.

I disagree.

May the best debater win.
Posted by billboard 9 years ago
billboard
let the best debater win.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by yhyoon12 7 years ago
yhyoon12
billboardKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
billboardKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
billboardKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
billboardKorezaanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by RequireTruth 8 years ago
RequireTruth
billboardKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
billboardKorezaanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
billboardKorezaanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by kelstwa 9 years ago
kelstwa
billboardKorezaanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
billboardKorezaanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
billboardKorezaanTied
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