The Instigator
Solid.Snake
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

There should be stricter control over the volumes of TV commercials

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 4 votes the winner is...
Solid.Snake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,318 times Debate No: 14131
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Solid.Snake

Pro

We've all been there. We're watching our favourite TV show, or sports game, etc. when a commercial comes on with blaring music. It startles us and more often than not annoys us greatly.

I believe that there should be a stronger set of rules that govern the volumes of commercials.

I invite my opponent to provide his/her reasons as to why we should not have greater control against this.
vardas0antras

Con

"I invite my opponent to provide his/her reasons as to why we should not have greater control against this."
The burden is not mine.

Anyhow here are my arguments:
o Television is still popular hence there aren't too many advertisements:
http://www.editorsweblog.org...
o Business
It makes people aware of many different products.
o Keeps television alive
It helps advertising agencies and communication mediums such as television, radio, newspaper to make good amount of revenues from advertisements. Hence advertising is benefiting great number of people in many ways.

Ill end it here
Debate Round No. 1
Solid.Snake

Pro

Thank you con for your points. I apologize for not carrying through with duty of my burden of proof. I will now try to disprove Con's short points (again, I apologize for not giving stating my points earlier).

"Television is still popular hence there aren't too many advertisements"

o OK I agree with the fact that TV is still popular. However, this does not make a difference on the lessening of the amount of advertisements (herein referred to as "ads") we see on television (herein referred to as "TV"). If anything, the high popularity of TV would encourage businesses to advertise more on TV since there is a greater profit to be made there than with other sources. Assuming a regular TV program (eg. Two and a Half Men, the news, etc.) is scheduled for 30 minutes, the program itself will only air for 22 minutes (not necessarily consecutively) while the other 8 minutes will be taken up by ads. If the show is 60 minutes long, then it will only air for 44 minutes while the ads will total 16 minutes long, etc. About 27% of a show's total air time is taken up by ads. As far as I know, this has been the standard for quite a while, which disproves my opponent's claim that "there aren't too many advertisements".

"Business" and "It makes people aware of many different products"

o I am assuming that by "business", my opponent means that ads keep businesses afloat by letting people know about their products and attracting customers to those products. Whatever the case, I will elaborate using this aforementioned meaning.

OK so businesses want to get their message out to the TV-viewing public using ads. That is completely fine with me, but the problem arises when certain ads have blaring music as part of their routine. When most people watch TV, they are doing it to relax, have some peace and quiet, bond with the family, etc. and not to listen to sudden, loud blasts of music or what have you from their TVs which disrupt the peace and annoy the viewers. This is especially apparent when you are watching a show with pleasant sounds such as a music video on Much Music, a Discovery Channel documentary, etc. This should be regulated so that the level of sound is kept relatively steady throughout the entire program.

This method, which is intended to draw the viewer's attention to the business usually ends up souring the person's attitude and impression of the business and/or their product. This is exactly what the business doesn't want. Therefore, we are benefiting both the viewer/consumer as well as the business if we control volume levels of ads.

"Keeps TV alive"

o I stated earlier that I have no problem with TV advertisements. It is the high VOLUME of certain ads that greatly annoys me. Of course ads keep TV alive--it is how everyone gets money to keep continuing. I am not saying we should ban ads outright--just a higher regulation of the volume.

I have disproved my opponent's claims to the best of my ability. I wish my opponent the best of luck for the next round.
vardas0antras

Con

O Introduction
First, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate and I am sorry that I failed to do this earlier. Secondly, " I apologize for not carrying through with duty of my burden of proof" is of no problem. Now lets begin before I add ado.

o "Television is still popular hence there aren't too many advertisements"
"OK I agree with the fact that TV is still popular."
Wherefore, the volume of ads is tolerable.

"As far as I know, this has been the standard for quite a while, which disproves my opponent's claim that 'there aren't too many advertisements'."
By what standard are you measuring ? By yours, obviously but what if we measured by my standard ? Clearly we would have the opposite conclusion. So what standard shall we apply ? The standard of the average viewer himself "OK I agree with the fact that TV is still popular.". The viewer may complain but he still likes the TV enough to find the volumes of advertisements tolerable.

o "Business" and "It makes people aware of many different products"
"OK so businesses want to get their message out to the TV-viewing public using ads." to "This should be regulated so that the level of sound is kept relatively steady throughout the entire program."
A: Previous Argument
B: How would you enforce this ? Please provide links for the sake of being realistic.

o "Keeps TV alive"
A: Same as previously

The burden of proof has not been met however we still have another round.Good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
Solid.Snake

Pro

"Television is still popular hence there aren't too many advertisements"
"OK I agree with the fact that TV is still popular."
Wherefore, the volume of ads is tolerable.
o Just because TV is popular does not mean that the volume of ads is tolerable. Certain ads are at a great volume but some ads are very loud or very sudden which can startle the viewer. Another analogy is that just because using your car to get to work is extremely important to you, does not mean that you will tolerate drunk drivers that could disrupt your driving experience.

This issue is so severe in fact that some companies are implementing technology to keep volume levels balanced. [1]

"As far as I know, this has been the standard for quite a while, which disproves my opponent's claim that 'there aren't too many advertisements'."
By what standard are you measuring ? By yours, obviously but what if we measured by my standard ? Clearly we would have the opposite conclusion. So what standard shall we apply ? The standard of the average viewer himself "OK I agree with the fact that TV is still popular.". The viewer may complain but he still likes the TV enough to find the volumes of advertisements tolerable.

o By "standard", I mean that almost all TV shows that I have watched in North America give programs 22 minutes of their own run time and the remaining 8 minutes in the total 30-minute time slot is taken up by commercials. As for the viewer finding the levels of volume tolerable, please read my analogy in paragraph/rebuttal 1 of this round.

"Business" and "It makes people aware of many different products"
"OK so businesses want to get their message out to the TV-viewing public using ads." to "This should be regulated so that the level of sound is kept relatively steady throughout the entire program."
A: Previous Argument
B: How would you enforce this ? Please provide links for the sake of being realistic.

o I have stated several times that just because a business wants to advertise their product/service, it does not mean the business should have a right to use really loud volume levels in their commercials. What I mean by this is that if a person's TV volume is set at 25% which is comfortable for them, the commercial should not go to the equivalent of 50-75% just to get their product "out there".

We would enforce this by ensuring that businesses (or whoever else wants the commercial to be aired on TV) does not use loud, sudden music. Surely the TV station reviews the ads before airing them on TV. There should be a panel of say, 20 people of varying age, gender, etc. to decide if the volume levels of the commercial are acceptable or not using a vote system, eg. if more than 15 people agree the volume is acceptable then the commercial should be aired.

Another solution would be to install the technology in products such as the one shown in link [1] in all satellite/cable boxes.

"Keeps TV alive"
A: Same as previously

o Please see other arguments.

Reasons for implementing these regulations:

- Does not distract the viewer(s) as much as if the volume levels are unregulated as they are now
- Less complaints to the TV networks which wastes less money for them
- Less people are annoyed/irritated by the loud noise levels, therefore they are more keen on buying the actual products. I know some people (such as myself) that keep their hands on the volume control, ready to lower the volume as soon as the TV commercials start. If this was not necessary for us, we could watch the commercials worry-free.

[1] http://www.amazon.com...
vardas0antras

Con

I concede that my opponent makes some good points but he doesn't come close to fulfilling his burden of proof, namely, the types of arguments he makes aren't per se good enough. You would have won this debate if the title said "It would be better if there was a stricter control over the volumes of TV commercials" instead of using the word "Should".

o "Just because TV is popular does not mean that the volume of ads is tolerable. Certain ads are at a great volume but some ads are very loud or very sudden which can startle the viewer."
Good perspective but the fact remains that they're tolerable enough for the TV to be popular. I suppose it all depends on how you define tolerable. Is the volumes of ads perfect ? No. Is it a pretty good balance ? No. Is it tolerable enough for you to watch the TV - regularly ? Yes.

"This issue is so severe in fact that some companies are implementing technology to keep volume levels balanced"
However, that does not change my previous point. Or, am I wrong ?

o Standard
Again, I don't have to agree to your standard and seeing how TV is popular I'd say that I have no good reason to accept your standard. ". As for the viewer finding the levels of volume tolerable, please read my analogy in paragraph/rebuttal 1 of this round." I have but this was your standard. However, lets take a look:
"Another analogy is that just because using your car to get to work is extremely important to you, does not mean that you will tolerate drunk drivers that could disrupt your driving experience."

To whom TV is "extremely important" ? Some people watch it for fun while for some it is an important part of their life. Both groups would have a completely different say on the advertisements. For example for one to enjoy TV, one should be cool with the advertisements since its a big part of the process. Like I said we all have different standards.

o Keeps TV alive
" I have stated several times that just because a business wants to advertise their product/service, it does not mean the business should have a right to use really loud volume levels in their commercials"
Incorrect, they don't have the right to do things like show nudity but loud volume levels are allowed.

Also, like I said its nothing personal just business. If the television has to stay alive by showing these ads then what is there to stop them ?

"Reasons for implementing these regulations":
1. This I have addressed besides thats not good enough for a "should"
2. Its up to the TV networks... In other words they know what is the best for them.
3. This is what the whole debate is a about and I have already addressed this.

Thank you and I hope to debate you again !
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by anarcho-capitalist 3 years ago
anarcho-capitalist
The problem with this debate is that both sides erroneously assuming that cable companies are free-market entities, when actually they are granted government-enforced monopolies. In return for this favor, the government forces the cable company to give the government a share of the profits in the form of taxes. Government is the root of the problem. In the free-market, the customer is king, for if you don't satisfy the customer you're history. Cable companies have no fear of becoming history thanks to the government, so they have no fear of screwing over the customers.

"Don't like the volume? What are you going to do about it? Start-up your own cable company with lower volume commercials? Or with no commercials but higher subscription rates? Or with subscriptions to the channels you wish for rather than having to buy an enormous, expensive package full of channels that you don't want? Ha! Competition against us is outlawed."

And as Murray Rothbard wrote in For A New Liberty, (Available free on-line here: http://mises.org... ) "Television consists of bland programs and distorted news. Radio and television channels have been nationalized for half a century by the federal government, which grants channels as a gift to privileged licensees, and can and does withdraw these gifts when a station displeases the government's Federal Communications Commission. How can any genuine freedom of speech or of the press exist under such conditions?

...In short, the federal government should denationalize the airwaves and give or sell the individual channels to private ownership. When private stations genuinely own their channels, they will be truly free and independent; they will be able to put on any programs they wish to produce, or that they feel their listeners want to hear; and they will be able to express themselves in whichever way they wish without fear of government retaliation." (p. 119)
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
I'm voting for Pro in this debate, even though I with Con on the resolution. I think the correct Con position is that the volume of commercials is fundamentally a matter of free speech, and what is better ought to be determined in the marketplace rather than by government. If lower volumes on commercials are more appealing to viewers, the quieter channels should prevail in the market place. If people don't mind the noise, then it's not a matter for government. Maybe the sound blast tells people its time to go to the bathroom. Point is, the market should decide, not government.

The number of commercials is irrelevant to the debate.

On December 3rd, Congress passed legislation regulating the loudness of TV commercials.

"Congress has finally found an issue that it can agree on: television commercials are too loud and something must be done about it. And so, yesterday, members of Congress approved the Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation, or CALM Act, aimed at keeping the volume levels of commercials from being louder than the TV programs that they interrupt."
http://www.digitaltrends.com...

Now they can get on with prohibiting plaid sports jackets in used car commercials and other such annoyances.
Posted by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
Nice debate here.

The problem I had with con was that many of his arguments, especially at first, seemed to be more about advertisements in general rather than their volume.

I would have liked pro to try and define at what point we get to the point of "should", as thats the key argument in this round.

Still, pro did a good job of using examples and instances that show that loud commercials are disrupting. I know the burden is on the pro, but con still could have given a reason or two why specifically, loud commercials should stay. But it was still good job by both of you.
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
This debate is a lot of fun though I don't think it belongs in the "Politics" category
Posted by Sitruk39 3 years ago
Sitruk39
I have never been startled from a tv commercial but i hwven't waqtched Super Bowl in a bit so I may be ignorant on this matter.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ReptiDeath 3 years ago
ReptiDeath
Solid.Snakevardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by darceem 3 years ago
darceem
Solid.Snakevardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Solid.Snakevardas0antrasTied
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 BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
Solid.Snakevardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40