That we should not target children in advertisements

I shall point out flaws in Pros argument: *** My argument: -'exposing children to advertisement because it is impossible to prevent' Pros counter-argument: -'Let us move on to a common case prevalent in state schools all around the world: Bullying. It is undeniable that bullying has negative consequences.'- My counter-argument: This is a straw argument Pros pointed out that bullying is bad thing. Which is, I agree. However, my argument is NOT advertising is impossible to prevent. My argument is advertising is impossible to AVOID. So I prefer not to talk more about this. Because even fundamentally, the Pros is already wrong. However, if people think that this is matter of word choice, I still think that that is a straw argument, here's why: The Pros mentioned bully, and the effect, that is true. But the Pros doesn't mention how does advertising and bullying connects to each other. Pros do mentioned this quote. 'Cool, let's let you suffer from bullying and we'll tell you methods to cope at the same time. So let us let those bullies rough you up a bit while, at the same time, we will tell you to run away and tell a teacher.' I don't think any advertisement tell kids about this (at least in my country). Advertising promotes consumerism, not bullying. Although consumerism can leads to bullying, this doesn't mean advertising promotes bullying. For a bullying to be succeed, then the environment (which in this case the neighborhood) must support it. You don't have to watch advertisement, to bully people. (And in my opinion, it's movie and TV shows that promotes bullying, not advertisement.) *** My argument: "we will become 'immune' to it" Counter-argument: Although this argument is true for the majority, this may not be true to the minority. I think this is a good argument, but this argument forgets a pressure point that I have repeated many times during the second round. Parents In this argument, the Pros gives the illusion that children will tear apart "alone". They wont, there's parent. Parent are there for them so they can accommodate their children, including if the children is part of the minority. Pros do gave us an example about homework, and gives an counter argument to my ideas of "parent" -"they simply cannot cope despite the help that you try to offer" I find this argument is proof-less, has no evidence. Our system has given "solution" for this minority who can't cope with homework. Such as home-schooling. I think many people had benefit from home-schooling. Whether home-schooling is good or bad is out of scope of this debate, but I'm sure that there is some people that have managed to cope with the help of home-schooling, so the idea that "even our help is futile" is simply wrong. Yes, there's very extreme case where they just cant cope with school. But they had met psychiatrist. The process of curing mental drawbacks are not quick. So you can't say that even psychiatrist can't help them. They can, it helps, but it takes time. Sometimes, it takes decades. (1) *** Pros argument: "The economic implications of such a procedure." The pros has make a good example of fast-food and obese. Obese is happening phenomenon , but we commonly forget that this happens because the obese' parents failed to give proper education. Have the parents succeed, the children will not obese, understand that eating too much is bad, and as a long-term, effect, the children will know their limits. I'd like to also point out an argument that I forgot to cover in Round 2. *** Pros argument: "As children mature, so does their ability to make more informed decisions, that's why we should protect our children for advertisement" Yes, mature people will make better decisions. But how do they make better decisions? From morale lesson that the mature person receives in childhood. If they don't know which is bad and which is good, how are they gonna make the decisions? *** Citation: (1)http://healthland.time.com...