advertisment aimed at children should be banned

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.