The Instigator
philosphical
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
belle
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/11/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,397 times Debate No: 11154
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (10)

 

philosphical

Pro

I stand in affirmation the resolution: "The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones"

for the following reasons.
This is meant to be a more light hearted debate. Good luck to whoever decides to accept it :)

1. Slow computers down
2. You can turn your volume down
3. They make you accidentaly click one them.

Contention one:
Alot of people's computers are slow enough as it is. These ads that fly across the screen open a whole extra browser which can slow a computer down considerably. Not only that but they are annoying! Why must we go and exit them out when with talking ads we don't physically have to do anything?

Contention two:
You can easily turn the volume down for talking ads. They don't pop out on you while your trying to do something, also. The voice really aren't all that bad in comparison to having to physically act on the pop out ads.

Contention three:
They make you accidentally click on them. You could be trying to type in the forums, or trying to click on the "home" tab, and out of nowhere this lame ad pops up and blocks your action. Not only that but when you accidentally click on it, very slowly opens up another browser. And again, for those who have slow computers, VERY vexing.

Conclusion:
I think that fly out ads are way more annoying than speaking ads, because peaking ads don't adversely effect anyone as much as pop out ads.

Thankyou
-philosophical
belle

Con

This is not a debate about whether talking or moving ads are more annoying to philosophical or to me. The burden is reveal which type of ad has more traits generally considered "annoying" associated with it. I think philosophical would agree, so no tricks, kay?

I contend that the talking ads are more annoying than the moving ones for the following reasons:

1.It is harder to find the mute button on talking ads than it is to find the close button on moving ads- thus talking ads are more distracting and take more effort to counter

2.Hearing an unexpected sound is more startling than seeing an unexpected popup. Especially if your volume is turned up high, it will have more of an impact on you than simply seeing an image streak across the screen. (the startle response in reference to vision generally has to do with flashes of light or movement close to the face)[1]

3. Talking ads are disruptive to anyone who happens to be within hearing range, rather than just aggravating the individual viewing the webpage. The quantitative amount of annoyance produced by a talking ad (as extended over several individuals) is thus greater.

To quickly address my opponents contentions:

1. Talking ads slow computers down as well. Sound files are larger than image files, so even though they are not moving I would call them equal and this contention moot.

2. If you turn your volume down, then you lose the ability to enjoy yourself fully in activities such as listening to music. If anything this is a point for my side since the mere possibility of a talking ad induces you to refrain from an activity which is otherwise enjoyable to you.

3. While this is true, the act of closing an unwanted window or pressing the "back" button on your browser is no more invasive than going to the volume control and turning it down upon encountering a talking ad.

For all these reasons, consider the resolution negated.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
philosphical

Pro

BELLE: I think philosophical would agree, so no tricks, kay?"

Yes , that's how it was intended

MY OPPONENTS POINTS:

BELLE #1
I negate this, because we can easily turn off our volume instead of hassling trying to find the mute button.
It is quite simple and easy to just not have your volume up so loud.

BELLE #2
I woul'd have to disagree with this one. Pop up ads can be VERY startling. For example, the talking ads on the side or more or less appropriate with their words. However when you get the pop out ones, you never know what your getting yourself into. One second it could be a gift win and the next second it could be porn! Their are children who use the internet, which makes pop out ads very bad when stuff like that happens.

BELLE #3
Again this can be simply handled with by not turning your volume on. However with pop out ads we dont have that option. We get no say in whether one will effect us by popping up randomly and slowing our computer screens.

MY POINTS

ME #1
The audio on the talking ad files however is already added on the page. The thing that sucks about pop out ads, is they open a whole nother miniature browser, which is infact alot larger and slows a computer down considerably.

ME #2
Most talking ads only last about a few seconds. If you were planning on listening to music, you would simply have to turn it up when you clicked on the page, and the ads wouldn't be as annoying or startling seeing as you would have expected it already. With pop out ads you unfortunately don't get that option.

ME #3
However the problem here is that peple with slow computers have a much harder time reloading there last page because the ad had interfered. With volume, is as simple as turning a knob down on the speakers, or draggin the little noise bar down, whereas when we have trying to reload a page, it can take more than a few minutes sometimes.

http://getsatisfaction.com...
belle

Con

In refuting my arguments, philosophical completely ignores my contention that turning your volume off or down can be extremely annoying if one is trying to listen to music while using the internet. Additionally he ignores the ability of talking ads to reach out in time and space. If you are going to a website when talking ads are employed, you have to turn off your volume to avoid the threat. The mere possibility of an ad manages to control your actions. And again, the ad does not only get on your nerves, but on the nerves of anyone within earshot. Simply saying "you can turn off the volume" is inadequate. If I don't want to deal with a whiney person, I can leave the room. However, that does not make the person less annoying. If someone jumps in front of me flailing their arms about (silently) and then walks away, while that may also be annoying , it is over quickly. It inevitability makes me carefree in regards to the future.

Philosophical also ignores the fact that the startle response is much better documented in relation to sounds than to images, unless an object or image is flying towards someone's face (as detailed on the wiki article).

I would challange my opponent to either support his assertion that flying ads slow down computers significantly more than talking ads or drop the issue. I am unable to find any data on the subject and as such this claim is baseless on both sides.

In conclusion: while all ads are annoying, the talking ones reach further in time and space as far as annoying consequences, more than making up for their relative evitability. A few seconds irritation at an interruption is far less than one's plans being frustrated by the threat of one continually.
Debate Round No. 2
philosphical

Pro

My opponent claims I have dropped some contentions. However, this is untrue, and can be verified by simply reading my last argument.

"turning your volume off or down can be extremely annoying if one is trying to listen to music while using the internet"

I have already refuted this by saying that having to upload another browser is so much worse, seeing as it slows your computer down as well, it is so simple to turn a knnob down or drag a little bar down in comparison.

"The mere possibility of an ad manages to control your actions. And again, the ad does not only get on your nerves, but on the nerves of anyone within earshot."

Again, as I have said in the last round, which has also been ignored, pop-ups can be jolting too. What about when porn ads pop up and shock people? There are also kids who use the internet who may be schocked by this. Talking ads are more cleaned, and checked for that kind of stuff, thus nothing innapropriate would be saind from a talking ad.

" If I don't want to deal with a whiney person, I can leave the room. However, that does not make the person less annoying. If someone jumps in front of me flailing their arms about (silently) and then walks away, while that may also be annoying , it is over quickly. It inevitability makes me carefree in regards to the future."

Yes but annoyance focuses on the present. And this debate is talking about the present. If we were to have the option to get rid of one, which would be the greater relief? While the annoyance does fade quickly, we still will have to deal with it sometime in the near future, thus not solving the problem at all.

In conclusion:
pop out ads are ten times as annoying as talking ones, because not only do they slow down your computer by opening up a whole seperate browser, but they also move in front of your mouse when you are trying to click on something, and bring you to different pages. We dont have to deal with this on talking ads.

Thankyou.

philosophical
belle

Con

"pop out ads are ten times as annoying as talking ones"

Now ten times?

I would like to remind my opponent that he is arguing for "ads that fly across the screen" and not pop ups. I would also like to remind him that I asked him to back up his claim about slowing down people's computers with facts and he has not done so. I consider that contention dropped.

I also think he would be interested to know that I preformed a test- I reloaded a page in which I had encountered a "fly across the screen" ad and had no problems whatsoever. The flying ad had no negative impact. I invite anyone reading this to try the same and find out for themselves.

Philosophical claims that "annoyance is in the moment" but I would counter that annoyance felt for a longer time period or more often than when the ad is directly encountered- ie having to turn off one's sound every time one visits a certain website, getting annoyed by the ad when your friend is the one using the computer and happens to be in the same room, getting annoyed with *yourself* because you forgot to turn off the sound and now have to deal with this stupid ad- trumps flashes of annoyance only in the moment the ad appears and only to you personally.

Philosophical also worries that porn could be encountered this way; so could pornographic sounds! We have nothing but my opponents guarantee that this does not occur. At least on DDO, since swear words are filtered, encountering pornographic ads strikes me as extremely unlikely, regardless of media.

I grant my opponent that accidentally clicking on a flying ad is annoyance that doesn't apply to talking ads, but that is only one thing about them, and I have listed at least 3 that my opponent has been unable to refute.
Debate Round No. 3
philosphical

Pro

BELLE: "I would like to remind my opponent that he is arguing for "ads that fly across the screen" and not pop ups."

Yes, they are the same thing.

BELLE: " I would also like to remind him that I asked him to back up his claim about slowing down people's computers with facts and he has not done so. I consider that contention dropped."

Are you serious? This is common sence. It doesn't need any proof. If you have more than one browser up at a time,your computer has to seperate its data between the two. Those who have bad internet systems, have to suffer from waiting a while longer than they should have to. Again, not a problem with sound ads.
For more info on this, check out the second link.
http://answers.yahoo.com...
http://www.surfsecret.com...

BELLE: "I also think he would be interested to know that I preformed a test- I reloaded a page in which I had encountered a "fly across the screen" ad and had no problems whatsoever"

My opponent seems to think that because she has a fast computer, that every one else convienently will too. However, this is not the case. Some people have slow computers where ads can interfere.

BELLE: (next paragraph for LOC)

My Opponent talks about annoyance in the moment, however, I don't understand what she is trying to get across here. Speaking ads are "in the moment" just as much as the pop-up ads are?

Belle: (porn)

My opponent says there could be pornographic sounds. However the speaking ads are attached to the site which only allows certains speaking ads. On this site there are only three speaking ads, and no more. However they pop-up ads don't have to go through a filter. While most of them are evony ads, I still have come across a porno ad when visiting DDO.

Last my opponent says that I have left contentions of hers unrefuted, however this is untrue. It is actually quite the opposite. See round two.
Thanks!
phil
belle

Con

First of all I would like to thank philosophical for this entertaining opportunity to b1tch about ads. Now...

Popups and ads that fly across the screen are decidedly *not* the same thing. A popup opens in a new window or tab; the ads that fly across your screen, while they may look like a new window, are contained within the same one. In the same experiment discovering that they did not interfere with page reloading (seriously, try it!) I also discovered that they are not blocked by pop-up blockers. Given this and the fact that they don't show a new tab at the top of my screen or a new window on my taskbar I think its pretty clear that they are quite different from pop ups.

Back to my case:
-flying ads are annoying when they appear and to the person to whom they appear. no one else is effected by them at any other times
-since talking ads can be avoided, one has the impetus to turn off the sound every time they visit a website where they expect to encounter one. this is annoying
-if one forgets to turn off the sound, not only will one be annoyed with the ad, but one will be annoyed with oneself for forgetting to turn off the sound; anyone else in the room will also be annoyed.

Since philosophical's contention about filesize depends on opening two separate browser windows, which doesn't occur, I still consider the point dropped.

And as for the flying ads being separate from the talking ads (and thus having no filter) this is also an unsupported assertion. The flying ads are just as attached to the site as the speaking ones (you don't see them popping up when you visit other webpages, do you?)

In conclusion, I find that, while all ads are annoying, speaking ones have further reach and actually manage to control the user even when they are not present. For this reason they much more annoying. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Yes they can be X'd out of, at least i can.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
I thought it was tied for the most part :)
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
to balance out philosophical's vote :P
Posted by kaylitsa 7 years ago
kaylitsa
I find i am allot more vexed by those flying ones then the audio ones. I can ignore sound, but when one flys in and blocks my post comments button i get angry. Plus the ones on this site can't be exed out can they?
Posted by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
Talking ad on this site made me an angry panda.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Every time you open a debate page, you get a flying ad. The forums, and home tab are compacted with talking ads though.
Posted by Frish 7 years ago
Frish
As if by chance, as soon as I posted my comment I was assaulted by a flying ad. I would like to edit the statement I made previously:

"1. There are talking ads on this site, but no flying ones!"

-to-

1. There more talking ads on this site than flying ones!

Still voting Con.
Posted by Frish 7 years ago
Frish
Gotta go with the talking ads on this one. I frequently am listening to music or video chatting on my computer, and the talking ads disrupt both.

A few points I'd like to make..

1. There are talking ads on this site, but no flying ones!

2. Occasionally, you will fall prey to a noisy ad with no mute button, forcing you to endure or (as I find myself doing in most cases) navigating away from this irritation.

3. Sometimes, these talking ads take it to the max. Never have I been gang-banged by flying ads, but find yourself a really long webpage with multiple noisy ads, and you will find yourself enraged by the resulting cacophony. No, I don't need Mucinex. No, I don't want a "Talking Betty" for my site (you can only ask her to speak like Yoda for so long..). And no, I don't want my free gift for being the millionth visitor to your site... six times in a row!

I'm going Con on this one.
Posted by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
Agreed
Posted by GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
I've always hated these stupid ads. Both of them!

But my computer gets so much more of those dang flying ads. SO annoying!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 7 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
philosphicalbelleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
philosphicalbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:24 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
philosphicalbelleTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
philosphicalbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 kiwimelon 7 years ago
kiwimelon
philosphicalbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
philosphicalbelleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 kaylitsa 7 years ago
kaylitsa
philosphicalbelleTied
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 
Vote Placed by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
philosphicalbelleTied
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 GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
philosphicalbelleTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
philosphicalbelleTied
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