The Instigator
Yoyo_xox
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sewook123
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

There should be no ads during TV programs specifically aimed at children

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
sewook123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,204 times Debate No: 51202
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Yoyo_xox

Pro

Ads are designed in a particular way to make you remember them. It could be an annoying little jingle but think to yourself, have you ever found yourself humming one of these tune? Now think about what that would sound like to a young child. If these ads are aimed at children, they will remember those ads for a long time and then during the ad they will actually pay attention. Also humans have a balance of what they need as opposed to what they want. We know that everything we need, we can somehow manage to get it for ourselves without needing to be talked into it. Ads trigger this feeling of need and can then result in the watcher feeling inadequate.
sewook123

Con

I accept. As Con, I am arguing that ads specifically aimed towards children should be allowed during TV programs.

Since Pro has presented his arguments in the first round, I will also proceed with rebuttals and arguments.

Rebuttals:

1. " Now think about what that would sound like to a young child"
An annoying jingle will sound like an annoy jingle to children. I do not understand what Pro is implying with this vague statement. I ask the Pro to explain.

2. "If these ads are aimed at children, they will remember those ads for a long time"
I would like some evidence that substantiates this claim. Why would ads be memorable if they are intended for children? According to numerous researches, adults, who have much more complex and developed brains and memory systems than
children's, only retain information that is deemed necessary. [1] Because of the stupendous amount of information that bombards a human being every day, one does not retain most of the information the brain receives. If adults can not remember most of what happens in their daily lives, it is obvious that children do not remember those insignificant ads for a "long time"

3. "then during the ad they will actually pay attention"
Another ambiguous statement in need of evidence. According to the research by Jeffrey G. Johnson, PhD; Patricia Cohen, PhD; Stephanie Kasen, PhD; Judith S. Brook EdD, viewing television actually evokes attention difficulties. [2] Thus, it is misguided to think that children pay attention to ads on the television.

4. "Also humans have a balance of what they need as opposed to what they want"
Do humans really have a clear distinction between their needs and wants? It is extremely common to hear people say that they need things that are actually redundant in their lives. Again, when adults are having trouble distinguishing between what they truly need and what they merely want, children generally wouldn't be able to discern the differences very well.

5. "We know that everything we need, we can somehow manage to get it for ourselves without needing to be talked into it."
Need is defined as "circumstances in which something is necessary; necessity:" by Oxford Dictionary. [3] People don't need cell phones or computers. They need air, water and shelter. These vital necessities are not advertised because, as Pro mentioned, people will get them without needing to be talked to.

6. "Ads trigger this feeling of need and can then result in the watcher feeling inadequate"
How do Ads trigger the feeling of need? What is this "feeling of inadequate" that you are talking about. I ask Pro to expound his statement in future rounds.

Now for my arguments.

1. Financial Aspect
Advertising directed at children is estimated at over $15 billion annually " about 2.5 times more than what it was in 1992. [4] Television advertisement is a billion dollar industry. If this industry was to be banned, all the revenue will disappear into the thin air. Thousands of people will lose their jobs. National GDP will fall. If advertising in TV is banned, the whole economy will be negatively affected.

2. Impracticality of Prohibition
Banning advertisements specifically intended towards children is, quite frankly, impractical. First of all, the law that indicates this prohibition will have to be passed. However, since large corporations that create those ads are largely involved in Politics, sponsoring numerous political candidates, these laws will never get passed. Secondly, the implementation of this law is also impractical. How are the Ads to be determined as children targeting? What would be the age range of children? Merriam-Webster defines child as "a young person." [5] The sheer scale of things that needs to be defined, regulated and implemented marks its improbability.

I would like to end this round with one of my strongest argument.

3. Civil Rights
Banning Ads directed towards children would be a form of censorship. Censorship is an extremely controversial issue that will add to the impracticality of banning children targeting Ads. There are numerous documents that oppose banning of any media. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution which states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." [6]

Banning advertisements can be argued as a violation of the First Amendment. Also, the internationally recognized United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the freedom of press. The article 19 states

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." [7]

As such prohibition of advertisements targeting children will be a violation of inherent human right established in some of the most revered documents.

I await Pro's rebuttals and arguments.

[1] http://www.lucid-research.com...
[2] http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] Susan Linn, Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood (New York: The New Press, 2004)
[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6]http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[7]http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Yoyo_xox

Pro

Yoyo_xox forfeited this round.
sewook123

Con

I still await my opponent's arguments and rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
Yoyo_xox

Pro

Yoyo_xox forfeited this round.
sewook123

Con

Pro has failed to rebut my arguments, defend his arguments and present solid points backed by clear evidence.

Pro forfeited the majority of his rounds.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by sewook123 3 years ago
sewook123
Thank you. I appreciate your comment greatly.
I understand that sometimes people are too busy.
Good luck on your future debates!
Posted by Yoyo_xox 3 years ago
Yoyo_xox
GOOD JOB sewook123,
Sorry I couldn't continue the debate I am only a beginner and I
dodn't have time to go on.
Congratulaions again.
Posted by amitkr1 3 years ago
amitkr1
I am agree with above headline.I want to share a great news related to Tv program.HUNNARBAAZ! Skilled To Win! will be presented by Siddharth Kak and Renuka Shahane who had teamed up over 20 years ago to showcase the ground-breaking cultural documentary Surabhi.
Posted by Mr.sarcastic 3 years ago
Mr.sarcastic
Stupid debate in my opinion
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Yoyo_xoxsewook123Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF but Con had sources.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Yoyo_xoxsewook123Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by BananaPhilosopher 3 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
Yoyo_xoxsewook123Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Yoyo_xoxsewook123Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and made unsubstantiated claims not arguments. A such Sources and conduct points to Con. Cons arguments clearly win in this debate, although I do not believe they are completely rational in themselves besides point 3. Legislation could be applied to solve issue 2 and issue 1 as with the smoking industry the advertising money is still spent just in craftier ways. Greta debate though.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Yoyo_xoxsewook123Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF