Adverts are evil

Let's delve into Rebuttals first. Rebuttals:Pro's arguments: "No one has been FORCED into reading this content. You are here, because you chose (and are still). " The same could be said with ads. You chose to go to that TV or website or magazine, and ads are there, much like I went to this site, and I saw Pro's assumption. It's not forced like a burglar coming into my house, and forcing me to give him my belongings. It's more like being forced to be searched when you want to board an airplane. "CON chose to expose himself to the force of my ideas, as they, like I stated, need to be tested and this is the correct testing method (combat ground). "True. I chose to take your ideas into consideration, just like I choose to take advertisements into consideration. Now that I think about it, you don't have to watch advertisements. You could just leave the room, or play video games, or refute your opponent's logic. In conclusion, you're forced to see an ad as much as you're forced to see my profile picture. Or pretty much everything. Rights vs Happiness:Pro is reffering to unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [Better source this]. Note the "pursuit of happiness" part. That's Utilitarianism. Although I've been talking about actions, this actually fits well. One might act to increase their own happiness, which will be discussed later on. Now what about the right to life? Simply put, everybody should live. I concede this is a right, but not relevant, becuse advertisements aren't threatening anyone's life. What's liberty? The right to freedom; freedom of choice, freedom of expression, etc. This is my opponent's main argument. But, like I said earlier, my opponent's argument is as forced as an advertisement. I chose to go to this debate as I choose to watch TV. If my opponent is not immoral, then advertisements aren't immoral either. Life is made out of decisions. I can choose to go outside. I can choose to refute my opponent's arguments. I can choose to turn on the TV. I can choose to play Super Mario Maker. I can choose to go to McDonald's. If a burglar breaks into my house, I can choose to not give him the money. Freedom of choice is practically untouchable. What about freedom of expression? Advertisements don't make us dress a certain way, or keep us from discussing the Bible. What about freedom to ourselves (slavery). Advertisements aren't making us slaves or anything like that. Therfore, advertisements are not immoral in the slightest. Defense:Validity of Utilirarianism:Sorry for the misspelling. It's a weird word. Anyways, I think Pro dropped his rebuttal against Utilitarianism itself. Happiness Cycle: "They go to extra-ordinary lengths to make the most perfect looking example of their food and take the clearest pictures possible. Then pay large amounts of money and fill other people's views with this wondrous food. "I could see that. After all, the cycle won't start if the customer refuses the product. "They hand over their money without thinking they could have purchased more nutritious food for less money and had a modest meal. "Sure, I could choose to have Subway's rather than McDonald's. But I still have that choice. Sure, McDonald's tastes better than Subway's. It's still my choice to have McDonald's. "It looks to me that CON's "cycle of happiness" belongs to McDonalds! "It does. But it's also shared with the customers. Are you saying, despite all the advertising McDonald's does, with the Big Macs, and the cooking, and the customers aren't pleased? Why do you think McDonald's is successful? They get money from making good food. The good food makes us happy, so we come back, so they get more money, the food makes us happy, so we come back. .. this is the cycle of happiness. Pro dropped the point about the customers; my first point. "While that is happening, the strong minded are subjected to these images" They saw it. "they know are not real" I don't see how the Big Mac is a fraud. "they have tried McDonalds "food"" So you don't like McDonald's? Well the majority of people like McDonald's, and those people are what keep the cycle going. Rebuttals to Conclusions:"However the fact that Utilitarianism is a subset of ALL people"Precisely. Where have I neglected anyone in my argument? If you look in Round 2, I discussed how both customers and the company are in the happinesss cycle. The customers are happy because they recieved the product, and the company because they recieved money. This money allows (and also, encourages) the company to continue making products. "By basic reasoning "money = the number of rights being affect by just one right" is a true statement, that can be applied to all adverts" I have a habit of gathering information, and unleashing everything in the final round. Anyways, Since I pointed it out, which right exactly is being violated? "As more human rights are being affected (bombarded by unwanted images)" Hey, I want to watch those advertisements as much as I want to deal with a someone who abandons debates. And as I've discussed, we're not 100% forced to watch ads. "by the application of money and only one human right is up held" I do see what Pro's saying. Violating freedom of choice (not really the case), and pursuit of happiness (depends on whether or not you dislike the ad). "this is immoral by utilitarian standard as well as any other. " But chances are, you heard of the Big Mac from advertising. Maybe on a sign, or TV. Seeing the advertisement makes you want to buy a Big Mac, thus starts the happiness cycle. Conclusion:Pro tried to straw man (misinterpreting my argument, and refuting the misinterpretation) my happiness cycle. He focused solely on the company, but neglected the whole other half of it; the customers are also happy. I've presented the flaw in the rebuttal, and defended myself. So my arguments stand. Pro now has a perfectly clear argument. He says advertisements hinder our human rights by forcing the idea upon them. I said that, under this logic, Pro's ideas were also immoral. Pro corrected me, saying that I chose to go to this site. I concede to that, but he put himself in a bigger pickle, since that removes the immorality of advertisements, since I chose to watch that advertisement. My happiness cycle argument was the biggest wrench in Pro's position. If the advertisements promote happiness, they must be moral. This can't really be argued against. Intentions are irrelevant, only happiness is reelvant.