Adverts are evil

We'll examine his arguments in more detail. Rebuttals: "Specifically but not limited to, the right of having ideas, the right to communicate and the right of privacy" So what you're saying is that the makers of the ad disagree on what the presentation should be, thus aren't able to have their ideas respected? You need to prove that the ideas are being disrespected if that's the case. "right + value = affected x right It is the fact as the equation is "value" on one side a rights on the other that makes the statement "Adverts are evil" to be true. "So Human rights with the value of ad = Customers affected multiplied by Human rights? What does this mean? "Why because unless this "value" itself, is value to all entity(Human) it is not moral. "So I must find value in something to make it moral? I don't care about rocks, but does that make them immoral? It would only be immoral if it did something, which it doesn't do anything. This assumption is wrong. "As seen this "value" includes many more things then "money". However PRO will make the following, a money example, however PRO encourages the reader to use as many references as possible, substituting "money" for "value". "Okay. McDonalds is moral, since their advertisements let me know that they have good food, which food is essential to life. Thus, McDonalds has value in something other than making profit. Nintendo has value because I know that they're making new video games for my enjoyment. Various companies make products to make our lives easier. There's value there. None of this is really undermining human values, though. "money = the number of rights being affect by just one right. " I have 5 dollars. Whose rights am I ingoring by having money? "money is the power force enabling 1 right to interfere with many rights" I think my opponent is suggesting that we have to pay for things. But recall the resolution is "Advertisements are evil". We're not forced to buy anything just because we watched it. We have the freedom of choice, and we can choose to buy Paper Mario: Color Splash. We can choose not to. And 1 right is interfering with multiple rights? What? "Also consider, in the exchange of "value" is between entities(people/business), there must be a mutual agreement that it is indeed "value". "In exchanging values, we must form an agreement that is values. What? This makes no sense. "Which when considered, provides that "advertising" targets are "people" or "advertising" preys on people. Consider the cheetah hunting, the are many prey" This anology does make sense, but looking deeper, it's not the exact same. When the cheetah hunts the gazelle, the gazelle is forced to be eaten, and doesn't have a choice (though it could run away). As for a company to a customer, the cutomer has a choice: Do I want the Big Mac or not? No one's forcing the customer to eat a Big Mac, unlike the gazelle, whom has little choice. Sure, the gazelle could be injured as to a customer loving Big Macs, but the choice is still there. The anology fails. Defense:"CON does not however, offer any supporting information [on Utilitarainism]" Well, Pro provided one for me. "It is faulty thinking that leads entities to define themselves or others with limiting labels. However this type of thinking is CON has done. " So if Utilitarainism isn't the greatest happines, what is it? ""Utilitarianism" has/is seen a valuable point of view as it provides for an easy(ish) computation providing for the best moral outcome. As such it has being functioning in the world for sometime (over 100 years) and due to it relate ease of use. " Which is why I chose it. Actions are moral if they promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness. It's a simple way to check whether a thing is moral. "Therefore just because an idea is believed to be of value to the mind that conceives it, that idea maybe based on faulty thinking. Hence the need to take all ideas and test them before application. " So Utilitarainism "may" be faulty? You can't say my moral framework "may" be faulty. You must show that it is indeed faulty, and clearly present the ultimate flaw. Also, Pro has dropped my main argument, which states that the advertisements create a cycle of happiness, thus making them moral. Rebuttal against a few Conclusions:"PRO has tried to avoid using any inappropriate or discursive "Labels" in to this debate and will continue to do so. "According to Pro's wikipedia page on Utilitarainism: "Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well-being of sentient entities. " I do not see how I misinterpreted Utilitarainsim, like Pro's suggesting. "Any time an idea is forced on another entities(person) consciousness, there is a breach of right. "So if an idea is forced upon me, the broadcaster of the idea is immoral? This framework Pro's presenting is contradictory. The very idea of ideas being forced upon people, is forced upon people. I was not expecting this, so the framework is being forced onto my consciousness, thus should be considered immoral. If the moral framework is immoral, then what are we going to do? As Pro did say, we need to test ideas before applying them. The very framework Pro presented is immoral, as it's doing exactly what it states is immoral! It failed the validity test, we should abandon this thinking. As for the Utilitarainism test. .. which increases happiness: murder, or giving someone flowers? Flowers make people happy, and should be considered moral. Conclusion:I agree that we should test moral systems. Pro's failed, since it claimed itself was immoral, which shouldn't be the case. Utilitarainism says that things are good when they make people happy. Advertisements allow us to see something we like, and then we can choose to buy the product. When we buy the product, the company gains money, which allows them to continue creating more products for our happiness. As I keep saying, this is a cycle of happiness, thus is completely moral.