Advertising: Manipulation or Information

First, I'd like to start out with some definitions so we're all talking about the same thing here. Advertise: to announce or praise (a product, service, etc. ) in some public medium of communication in order to induce people to buy or use it: to advertise a new brand of toothpaste. [1] Manipulate: to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner. [2] Manipulation: the act of manipulating. [3] Information: knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance. [4] Media: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely. [5] Advertising: the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc. , especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc. [6] I'll summarize my opponent's case as follows: P1: Media is considered important, yet report different facts. P2: In societies that seek to maximize profits, advertising turns into manipulation. P3: Advertising is information violence. C: Advertising is manipulation I'm sorry if that's not quite what you were trying to say but I tried to pick out your major points. P1: Media is considered important, yet report different facts. Media of course has two separate contexts - media as in the form of communication or media as in the corporations that own the form of communication (e. g. New York Times, ABC, BBC, etc. ). I would argue that this is good thing. Having multiple sources of information is critical to better understanding our world and validating the truthfulness of any media outlet. I don't see how my opponent could be down on media for this or why the media should be blamed for any supposed evil of advertising. P2: In societies that seek to maximize profits, advertising turns into manipulation. I'm not sure what societies in particular that my opponent is referring to but I'll assume those that are at least partially capitalistic. Unlike the free societies where capitalism is practiced, unfree societies are where one is forced to do things against their will. Take for example, Saudi Arabia where anyone of non-Muslim belief is not able to openly practice their religion. Or even Russia when it was under Communist rule, you bought a certain brand because that is all that the State offered. That is being forced to do something against your will. Advertising allows the consumer to be aware of various products and who offers them. The buyer then makes a choice based on their own needs, preferences and ability to buy. This is hardly manipulation. In order to manipulate the advertiser would have to intentionally unfairly influence the buyer. But how is this happening? All advertisers freely market their wares in free societies so there is no unfair influence that I can tell. P3: Advertising is information violence. I'm not quite sure what Pro means by information violence. It seems this is a reference to advertising making people do what they don't want to do against their own interest. This is simply untrue. No matter what economic system is employed people always act in their perceived best interest. Again, with Russia during the Soviet era there was a huge black market for goods not allowed by the state. So even when advertising isn't allowed people still seek out the goods they want. Whether those goods are bad for their interest is not the fault of advertising. Conclusion: My opponent's entire case is an assertion. If she cares to back up her claims with facts, I'll rebut those. Since, the burden on proof is on Pro, I fail to see how she has made her case. Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] . http://dictionary.reference.com...