Television advertising aimed directly at children should be banned or regulated.

I negate, "Television advertising aimed directly at children should be banned or regulated". I'd like to point out that her case is about "regulation". She can't go for "banning" in either of her next two rounds because that would be a shifting advocacy. ""Give me a child from any background and I'll turn him into anything you want- a scientist, politician, or even a criminal. "" If, after reading this quote, you think that all psychologists think like this, DON'T. The reasoning this psychologist is using a BRANCH of psychology called "behaviorism", which states that people are born as blank slates and like slates, parents, teachers, and pratically anyone can "write" on your brain and shape your personality. But I have another response to this. Since my opponent's link to the topic, ‘that we should regulate and ban advertisements', is that "advertising does this to children", as long as I take out the link you cannot go PRO. Steven Pinker writes, (Pinker, Steven. Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature", Penguin Books, 2002. Pg. x) "[…T]he malleability of the human psyche: that little boys quarrel and fight because they are encouraged to do so; that children enjoy sweets because their parents use them as a reward for eating vegetables; that teenagers get the idea to compete in looks and fashion from spelling bees and academic prizes; that men think the goal of sex is an orgasm because of the way they were socialized. The problem is not just that these claims are preposterous but that the writers did not acknowledge they were saying things that common sense might call into question[…]That mentality cannot coexist with an esteem for truth, and I believe it is responsible for some of the unfortunate trends in recent intellectual life. One trend is a stated contempt among many scholars for the concepts of truth, logic, and evidence[…]The theory that parents can mold their children like clay has inflicted childrearing regimes on parents that are unnatural and sometimes cruel. It has distorted choices faced by mothers as they try to balance their lives, and multiplied the anguish of parents whose children haven't turned out the way they have hoped. The belief that human tastes are reversible cultural preferences has led to social planners to write off people's enjoyment of ornament, natural life, and human scale and force millions of people to live in drab cement boxes. The romantic notion that all evil is a product of society has justified the release of dangerous psychopaths who promptly murdered innocent people. And the conviction that humanity could be reshaped by massive social engineering programs led to some of the greatest atrocities in human history. " And that's exactly the PRO's position: That we can reshape children by just regulating the advertisements. By the way, she doesn't explain how we're going to know what's directed at children and what's not, and she also doesn't explain how we know when advertisements are "over the line" or not, and she ALSO doesn't explain how we're going to do it and what we're going to do when we "regulate" them, NOR what criteria it must meet. At that point, the PRO could be supporting government propaganda, which links directly back into Pinker's criticism. "According to catholiceducation. org, the average American child[. .. ]" 1) What's an "average child"? 2) Not a reliable source; this doesn't even separate education from religion. Give me BBC or something. 3) How many children were surveyed? 4) Please give me the exact URL. OVERVIEW 1: She assumes that all children think in a certain way. This will never be true, as you can never make a blanket statement about how people think; we can't just assume that if given X Y and Z then people, or rather, children, will respond in A B and C ways. Refer to Pinker for more analysis. OVERVIEW 2: Statistics that don't give how many people surveyed, who was surveyed, and what time the survey was taken can't be taken as true. For example, I could go to Baskin Robins and ask the two people sitting outside who happen to be eating chocolate ice cream cones, "Is chocolate the best tasting flavor? ", they say "yes". Well, the survey showed that 100% of people surveyed said that chocolate was the best flavor! Psh. Even though that statement is true, it's ridiculous to apply it to anything else until the statistics on the background of the survey is given. Line by line. 1) Anecdotal evidence without citation. Double fallacy. a- 1. How do we know that these children did this in reaction to TV? 2. Please give me a citation. 3. No link to topic. Spongebob and Superman are TV SHOWS. 4. This can be solved by having better parents. b- 1. "One may conclude that children will believe that" this is ridiculous. 1b. I don't conclude that. 2. Under this line of reasoning, we should censor absolutely everything on TV because children don't only watch TV ‘aimed' at children! BTW this also links to everything else in her case, as we don't know what exactly is "aimed" at children. There's no way to determine intent in anything. 2) So what? There's always going to be people that don't get it. 3) Then don't put them in a "learning environment". Problem solved. a- 1. I don't get a "Channel 1" on my TV. What is it? 2. Please give me the exact numbers. 2b. And URL while you're at it. 4) It isn't in my life. I don't watch TV at all. a- 1. Exact URL please. b- 1. Funny how this evidence here talks about TV in general, not "TV aimed at children". Nontopical. c- 1. Not a reliable source; this doesn't even separate education from religion. Give me BBC or something. 2. That's not a reason to vote PRO. I didn't like my father, but it wasn't because I watched TV, it's just because he really sucked at being a nice person compared to my mom. 5) Lol, this one doesn't even tell us what the number of percentage is. a- My browser cannot find this web page. Screenshot it for me will you? SHORT FORM (not in order): -Her link to affirming is Behaviorism. She's being hypocritical by using behaviorism in order to do exactly what she's saying advertising is doing, which CAN lead to many bad things but i CAN'T tell you exactly what cause she -Doesn't specify what she's going to do -Doesn't specify what's "advertising aimed at children" -Doesn't specify what's "over the line" and what isn't -Thinks all people think the same way and that going PRO changes things -Statistics aren't reliable until certain conditions are met; none of her statistics meet all of the criteria -Doesn't prove how her tragedies were as a direct result of advertising. -Problems can be solved in a different way.