The Instigator
Anand
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points

advertisment aimed at children should be banned

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 9/26/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,214 times Debate No: 13223
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

Anand

Con

advertisment aimed at children should be banned because advertisment aimed at children is unethical because children are not mentally developed to make decision
1 they are easy manipulated by advertisment seek not to give information but to persuade them.
2 children food marketing business is strong they fall into it cause obesity problem in children
Danielle

Pro

* Clarifications *

Before we begin, I'd like to point out to both my opponent and the audience that THE RESOLUTION IS BACKWARDS. Con advocates in his opening round that advertising to children should be banned, meaning we should assume that he is actually *PRO* resolution and simply made a minor error when instigating this challenge. From this point forth, I will be arguing the *CON* position to the resolution. However, for clarity, I will refer to my opponent as "Con" simply because it'll be easier to keep track. Clearly the audience should respect the fact that my opponent intended to argue as PRO (which is obvious from his round), and if not, he would effectively be arguing against himself so I would have won anyway as he has the burden of proof. Nevertheless, I'm hoping we can all agree that I'm CON, my opponent is PRO, and get on with a great debate :)

===========================================================================

Essentially my opponent has given us two reasons in favor of the resolution:

1. Children are manipulated by advertisement agencies that seek not to inform them but persuade them - and children are not mentally developed to make informed decisions.

2. Food marketing toward children has contributed to the obesity epidemic in America.

I'll begin by pointing out that the obesity epidemic is not only prevalent in children but to people across the board. Various studies reveal that children with obese parents face the highest risk of being overweight [1]. It's also been noted that children spend less and less time outdoors [2] and nearly 8 hours a day -- not including sleep or school, obviously -- engaged in social or virtual media meaning they're getting less and less exercise. The point here is that various factors are contributing to the obesity epidemic, and advertising only plays a minor role. This becomes even more apparent when you realize that children typically do not have income, meaning no money to buy food or junk. In this way, it becomes mostly the *parents'* responsibility in choosing to buy their kids more healthy options and encourage them to lead more active lifestyles.

Speaking of parents, the fact that they are largely responsible for (a) buying things for their children, (b) monitoring their time watching television and (c) teaching them about dealing with the real world - including avoiding marketing ploys - this resolution seemingly becomes obsolete. It's obvious that advertising companies are not acting outside the parameters of their rights, or violating any laws in choosing to advertise. Con says they aim to persuade and not inform people, but this can be said about advertising to *any* demographic - not just children. For instance when Wendy's advertises that they're now open late (to 12 am or later), do you think they're marketing to children? The entire commercial is meant to entice the audience using visual stimulants of certain colors (like red, green and yellow) which have been psychologically proven to stimulate appetite. Obviously the advertisement doesn't expect children to drive themselves to Wendy's at 1:00 in the morning.

The point here is this: Companies have a right to advertise; that's how they market their products, grow, expand and profit. This keeps companies afloat creating a plethora of jobs (including the advertisers themselves) and overall benefiting the economy. While laws can always be amended, what they are doing is not immoral. We are not slaves to consumerism and neither are children. While it's true that children are far more easily dissuaded, most of the time they rely on their parents to get what they want. As such, the parents must take a more active role in both educating their children and making sure they don't become victims to marketing ploys.

There is essentially no way to get around these "ploys" either; for instance the supermarket usually stacks healthy cereals higher on the shelf, and "kids cereal" lower because they will be in direct eye-sight of the child who will then request the purchase. This might seem manipulative, but almost all of our interaction and especially acts of consumerism are intended simply to persuade people to buy their products. The company doesn't care how or why; their main incentive is simply to profit, and that's not necessarily a bad thing (if they're being safe in the process and not directly harming others). Remember that this can be avoided by parental regulation of media intake and other lessons. Plus, ultimately one's parent has the control of whether or not to feed into the sensationalism.

Thanks, Con, for starting this debate and good luck in the next round.

[1] http://www.innovations-report.de...
[2] http://www.heartland.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Anand

Con

advertisment aimed at children should be banned because advertisment aimed at children is unethical because children are not mentally developed to make decision
1 they are easy manipulated by advertisment seek not to give information but to persuade them.
2 children food marketing business is strong they fall into it cause obesity problem in children

As my opponent is saying that every thing depends about parents to buy, materalistic thing to children or not buy,
1 but what about the advertisment that they show in tv, about branded things, which all children nowadays needs to seem to think they need but which is beyound budget of many household, contributes youth to crime.
2 children are not mentally prepared developed enough to make decisionthey are easily manipulated by advertisment.
3 advertisment to boys has promoted voilent behaviour they cause children to be more fearful agressive and less senstive to the point of other.
4 as opponent says its upto parents decision but as todays generation parents cant keep an eye on children every seond what they do..
5 for little girls asked if they want to be teen top model that the way to do is barbieit is a negative impact.
because model are paid to advertise specific clothing instead of defining themselves they are defined.
child is exposed to more than 40,000 thousand ads given a year.
6 the reality is we shape our social values behaviour, taste based on what we see on tv magzine.
companies sell their thousand of product which is unhealthy lack of nutreint will make you fat, but ad is shown with beautiful skinny girls . but reality is few this women have that kind of skinny body. but ad is shown in some other ways.
In ad they show voilent movies, music, and m rated video games wher children jus get attracted to it wher then children constantly demands.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con. For this round I will copy and paste my opponent's new arguments, and then respond directly underneath.

1. "but what about the advertisment that they show in tv, about branded things, which all children nowadays needs to seem to think they need but which is beyound budget of many household, contributes youth to crime."

----> My points regarding parental monitoring of media and teaching life lessons to their kids about consumerism effectively responds to this argument. Crime is an unfortunate reality of our society almost impossible to avoid. Many things deter youth to crime; for instance acceptance in gangs. We can't outlaw the desire to own things or market things -- we can only punish criminal offenders who resort to unethical and unlawful means to satisfy their desires.

2. "children are not mentally prepared developed enough to make decisionthey are easily manipulated by advertisment."

----> This is simply repetition of what was said in the last round, and I've responded. Most of the time children aren't making decisions about what to buy - their adult parents are. I've responded to manipulation in advertisement; refer back to R1.

3. "advertisment to boys has promoted voilent behaviour they cause children to be more fearful agressive and less senstive to the point of other."

----> I would like my opponent to show sources or statistics verifying this statement. It's true that violent media can promote aggression, but most advertisements are not violent nor can they be (due to federal regulations) so this is seemingly a moot point. If my opponent can present credible evidence supporting this, I'll respond to it in the next round.

4. "as opponent says its upto parents decision but as todays generation parents cant keep an eye on children every seond what they do.."

----> Parents don't have to "keep an eye" on kids every single second to be effective in teaching them values or concepts, realities about spending money and consumerism, etc. Once again they also don't have to feed into this consumerism by rewarding their child with every single thing they want.

5. "for little girls asked if they want to be teen top model that the way to do is barbieit is a negative impact.
because model are paid to advertise specific clothing instead of defining themselves they are defined.
child is exposed to more than 40,000 thousand ads given a year."

----> Yes, children and adults alike are exposed to a lot of advertisement. So? That doesn't negate anything I said in R1 about the legal right to advertise, and how advertising itself is not explicitly immoral. It simply seeks the goal of sales, but it's up to the individual to make informed decisions about what they buy and don't buy. Advertisement can only be immoral insofar as it makes false claims or lies about the product. Con hasn't given instances of this occurring.

6. "the reality is we shape our social values behaviour, taste based on what we see on tv magzine.
companies sell their thousand of product which is unhealthy lack of nutreint will make you fat, but ad is shown with beautiful skinny girls . but reality is few this women have that kind of skinny body. but ad is shown in some other ways.
In ad they show voilent movies, music, and m rated video games wher children jus get attracted to it wher then children constantly demands."

----> The media can be cruel and hypocritical. This is true. However again we reach the same conclusion of not finding anything intrinsically wrong with the advertising itself. Food companies have the incentive to market food, so they will. Clothing companies have the incentive to market clothes, so they will... using skinny models, if they feel that it will best promote their product. While advertisement and the media help shape our culture and society, their influence should only go so far as their incentives. Once again it's a parents' responsibility to explain these marketing strategies to their children to help them rise above the temptation.

Plus, here it seems that Con is saying advertisements perpetuate an unrealistic depiction which negatively impacts one's self-esteem and body image. The same concept can be applied to adults, and again we must look to the reason advertisements exist the way they do. Con apparently wants to force companies to advertise to his own standard, or the standard of what he feels will be best for society. However, is it fair to force a company to market something a specific way and ignore their right to act within the parameters of the law to run their company the way they see fit? Advertisements don't infringe on others' rights, but Con wants to infringe on the rights of advertisers. This seemingly does not add up. Please extend my arguments from R1 about why this would be unfair and counterproductive to society.
Debate Round No. 2
Anand

Con

ya as pro says that its parents responsibility. to guide children about things. but children get exposed to certain things of advertisment that they start demanding product. now and then., because advertisment is shown in such a way. they get attracted. to it.
2 In day to day life parents go fo job you cannot have control on child about sayin advertisment product. which they easily get attracted.so things which are not affordable. to spend money on jetstrix video game. wher every child wants when they see advertisment. to spend money on that.they can spend money in something else. which will be useful for them.
3 then why dont they show healthy advertisment about fruits, which is more use ful for children to be nutrient.than obesity to have junk food which they are exposed to advertisment and then get attracted.
Danielle

Pro

My opponent says a few more things:

1. Children demand products.

----> Extend my arguments about parental responsibility.

2. Sometimes parents can't afford what children want.

----> This doesn't have anything to do with my points regarding advertising rights and the good that comes from marketing, nor does it challenge anything I said about parental responsibility.

3. Advertisements should promote healthier things.

----> This isn't a debate about what advertisement should advertise; it's about whether advertisement aimed at children should be banned. I've explained throughout this debate that advertising is vital to a company's success. Said company employs many people which is good for the economy and society in general. Many times advertisements are the only way to successfully promote a product. Children can inform their parents of the product, and the parents can use their best judgment about whether or not to make the purchase. Regarding the harms of self-esteem from advertisement, extend my arguments from the previous round.

Thanks again to my opponent and good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
There is a strong presumption in favor of free speech. To overcome that presumption, Con would have to present compelling data that advertising posed serious dangers to children that could not reasonably be overcome without abridging speech. For example, suppose something X was shown on television that caused children to so something very risky that parts could not reasonably control, and X was linked to injuries. Perhaps some TV show resented a game that involved running into traffic, then there would be grounds for overcoming free speech. However, with respect to advertising, parents control spending so whatever objections there are to advertising can be reasonably overcome.

Con should try harder to improve his spelling and grammar.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
I wanted to accept one of these, but i did not know what side he was on. Felt like a booby trap
Posted by Anand 6 years ago
Anand
is any one thjer to debate with me..
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 6 years ago
C-Mach
AnandDanielleTied
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 Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
AnandDanielleTied
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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
AnandDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by slaad 6 years ago
slaad
AnandDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Blank 6 years ago
Blank
AnandDanielleTied
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 J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
AnandDanielleTied
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 Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
AnandDanielleTied
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