Advertisements do more harm than good

My opponent says" The argument is if advertisements do more harm than good, not if adverts should go away, which they never will.", but the reason why advertisements would never go away is because they are essential to the economy, without advertisement, the economy would suffer, as sales would be down, and when sales go down unemployment would increase. When I speak of flyers which my opponent has agreed is a cheap source of advertisements, I am not speaking of the flyers in the mail, I am talking about the flyers on lamp posts, that people see when on the side walk. Or flyers handed out in front of the store or restaurant. My opponent has tried to draw a connection between increase in advertisement and increase in discontent, but discontent usually is a result of changes in society, rather than changes in what we buy. For example happiness in 1960's plummeted due to the Vietnam war, and growing discontent, we remained about the same since the 1970's, but we are slightly less unhappy than in the 1970's because of the gradual decline. After the Vietnam war in 1975, happiness gradually increased until the Early 1980s recession, which lead to a gradual decline. We also had a decline of happiness from the Early 1990s recession, the Early 2000s recession, and the Late-2000s recession. In other words, happiness is related to the state of the economy, not the production of advertisements. My opponent claims that, "Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead.". That does not change with a reduction of advertisements, in fact advertisements inform the consumer about the product. Without advertisements less people would know about the better product. Let's say 30 people buy flip phones, while 70 people buy I-phones, without advertisements, 50 would buy I-phones, and 50 would buy flip phones, because 20 people didn't hear about the features of the I-phone. Now when those 20 people see the people with the I-phone, they would become upset that they did not opt for the I-phone over their flip phone. My opponent has tried to draw connections between advertisements and the fascination with Skinny models, but the fact of the matter is, the advertisers already play on per-existing sentiments. Centuries ago being over weight was a sign of beauty because it was a sign of wealth, and advertisers used the idea of beauty of the time to sell items. In 19th century a hour glass shape was seen as beautiful by society, and advertisers again used society's idea of beauty to sell products. In more recent years skinny is seen as beautiful, so advertisers, use what SOCIETY has said is beautiful, in order to SELL products. If 80% of people decided to go out and get dread locks, than a month later an actor decides to go along with the fad, would you believe the actor started the fad, or would you believe he hopped on the band wagon? The fact of the matter is, Advertisements are meant to SELL products. Selling the product means they have to APPEAL to society. In order for advertisements to appeal to society they need to use the per-existing ideals SOCIETY has created, and they must be able to use PER-EXISTING sentiments to their advantage.