Teenagers need better role models

(Deconstruction of Con Case)-Subjectivity.I pointed this out in the beginning of my R1. Obviously what one counts as a "good" or "bad" role model will be ultimately subjective. However, in the context of communicative argumentation some common standard has to be in agreement between the debaters. Moreover, the resolution itself necessitates the use of some value system in choosing between good or bad role models. Consider the term "better" in the resolution. Obviously no debate could take place if the terms "better" or "worse" were completely meaningless. My own common sense definition of a good role model in conjunction with the resolutions implication of some standard should lead to the acceptance of the general standard of independent thinking, creativity, responsibility, innovation, community-mindedness, etc. -Consumerism.I'm not sure what exactly this has to do with the debate at hand. Whether advertisements are turning children into zombie drones is rather beside the point. Furthermore, Con seems to admit implicitly in this point that the current general role models for teenagers today aren't optimal. If our current "consumerist" society really is turning children into "dumbed down money sending celebrity following drones" then it wouldn't seem like too much of a stretch to assume that the role models that are being pumped into their minds are closer to Lady Gaga then to Thomas Paine. Therefore the consumerism point works in Pro's favor.-Parental Role ModelsCon's next point is to argue that celebrities aren't looked up to as much as I say and that most boys (what of girls?) simply look up to their fathers or children will look up to siblings. However, I refer readers to my point in R1 that we should only discuss certain people that are held generally as role model. Tommy Coppola might look up to his dad Joey but I'm assuming the general teenage population doesn't. Therefore it's in our interest to find common denominators found all throughout society rather then marginal cases. Moreover, a study found the influence of athletes as role models almost as high as that of parents[1][2] so the point is moot anyways.Stepping beside that though, my point still remains. The role models of teenagers are still generally sub-optimal. You might think it natural for a boy to look up to his father but when looking at what actually makes up a good role model, parents are much too fluid to be taken as a general rule. Not every (or even most) parents are innovative, creative, and all the other qualities of a good role model. The adoption of various people as role models (for instance Winston Churchill or Thomas Paine) would beat parents in the sense that there's no guarantee a parent will be a good role model.-Marginal CasesCon lastly points out that some teenagers will look up to people like Nelson Mandela. I freely admit this. However, the resolution uses the term teenagers in a general sense. The resolution isn't "Some teenager need better role models", it is clearly meant to take the role models who are norms and analyze whether they're good or bad, not just look at the few teenagers who have good ones. Refer to my R1 where I explained this point.(Defense of Pro Case)I'd also like to point out that my own argument regarding the need for optimal role models has not been contested by Con. Therefore, since the majority of teenagers do not hold wholly optimal role models, the resolution is upheld.==Sources===[1] http://www.kff.org...[2] http://abcnews.go.com...