The Instigator
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Skittishnymph
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

There should be a ban on television advertisements aimed at children.

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...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,976 times Debate No: 20326
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

InVinoVeritas

Con

I am against the instatement of a ban on TV ads aimed at children. Pro argues that they should be banned.

Child: Human between birth and puberty

First round is for acceptance and discussion of terms of debate and definitions.
Skittishnymph

Pro

You have stated that a child is some one who is between birth and puberty. I would like this to be a child is some one between the ages of 2 and 16 years of age. This is because whilst birth is a defined parameter, puberty is not and various in every person. Also a child under 2 will not process an advertisment in the same manner as an older child, the effects an advertisment will have, will be different.

Further I assume advertisment in this context refers to one advertising a product aimed at children or a brand, and not an upcoming tv program for kids, or a movie.
Debate Round No. 1
InVinoVeritas

Con

I. Food for High Energy

Children naturally like foods that are rich in fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. Carbohydrates give long-lasting energy to children because they take longer to break down for the body to use. [1] Protein, too, provides kids with healthy energy. [1] And fats are an essential part of a child's diet, since it can be burned as energy (which children tend to have a lot of of.) [2] The tendency of children to enjoy this type of food is understandable (since children innately require a lot of energy, since they are growing and typically quite physically active), and when intake is managed, high-fat/high-carb/high-protein foods can prove to be beneficial to a child's diet.

II. Parents' Burden

A problem arises, however, when the aforementioned foods are overconsumed. This is an issue that stems from parents' irresponsibility and is not the burden of corporations that advertise unhealthy products. Parents should be encouraging children to engage in physical activities and limiting their intake of unhealthy foods. Ultimately, the people who have the power to purchase unhealthy food are the parents, not the children. A solution to this, as suggested by Harvard University obesity researcher David Ludwig, is to make parents who allow their children to become super-obese to lose custody. [3] It comes down to the parents' decision to neglect their children, essentially. Managing a child's health is a responsbility of a parent, and corporations should not be expected to contribute to this role. No commercial has the ability to directly convince a child to "buy" anything; the most it can do is cause a child to ask a parent or guardian to make a purchase. At that point, it is up to the parent or guardian to make a decision.
III. Freedom of Expression

Many commercials are not "just for kids" or "just for adults." Some have elements that attract people from both of these age groups. It is very difficult to categorize many commercials into age groups. Who is to say whether or not a certain commercial specifically targets children or not? In some instances, the situation is cut and dry (e.g., Ronald McDonald), but it's not always so clear. Furthermore, sometimes children watch programs that adults enjoy; does that mean some adult advertisements should be gotten rid of to? This subjectivity has the potential of being overextended that ultimately could lead to abuse of censorship. This leads into the second part of this claim:

Censoring advertisements toward children is an attack on fundamental freedom of speech. Corporations have the right to publicly market their legal products. Moreover, children have the right to receive information and take their own standpoint on issues. Censorship of programs, such as advertisements, would restrict the world views that children are exposed to. Although it is often stated that television brainwashes children, this is blatant hyperbole; a much larger threat is depriving children of the freedom to acquire information and establish their own viewpoints on matters.

---

In conclusion, there should not be a ban on television advertisements aimed at children.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.ehow.com...
[2] http://kidshealth.org...
[3] http://abcnews.go.com...
Skittishnymph

Pro

Skittishnymph forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
InVinoVeritas

Con

Extend all arguments.
Skittishnymph

Pro

Skittishnymph forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Change your definition of child? Because some people have early puberty and others have late puberty.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
InVinoVeritasSkittishnymphTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
InVinoVeritasSkittishnymphTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, as a result Pro has no arguments = arguments to con, conduct to con. Pro has no sources = sources to con