Adverts are evil

Firstly - I am sorry for not having completed my argument - firstly because I have shown disrespect but also others. As a debate - I lose because of this. CON kindly continued, thank you. CON supports PRO's arguments leading up to "Rights? So human rights are being affected in the distributing of advertisements?" Yes - entity(human) rights. Specifically but not limited to, the right of having ideas, the right to communicate and the right of privacy right + value = affected x right then - To continue"".. for where I rudely stopped. value = (affected x right) / right (the number of rights being affect by just one right). value = the number of rights being affect by just one 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. Why because unless this "value" itself, is value to all entity(Human) it is not moral. Pro has avoided specifying the "value" as PRO has considered a wide range of "Advertising" this includes, but not confined to 1. Commercial (the main substance of my opponents argument) 2. Charity - Oxfam and the like 3. Government - Drink driving, road safety 4. Non averting entities that advertises (e.g.- newspapers, TV) etc. 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". money = the number of rights being affect by just one right. I my opinion, very ugly, because it shows that, money is the power force enabling 1 right to interfere with many rights. Also consider, in the exchange of "value" is between entities(people/business), there must be a mutual agreement that it is indeed "value". The use of target, was simply a way of showing 1 item, selected from many. When applied in advertising this target is an entity(person/business). Which when considered, provides that "advertising" targets are "people" or "advertising" preys on people. Consider the cheetah hunting, the are many prey, the best prey from the cheetah's point of view, is the easiest one that will provide dinner so this becomes the target. Rebuttal. CON makes a very well presented argument (I like the layout, I must do better). CON clearly shows the process of advertising and a view of its success in moral benefits. However, CON claimed a point of view "Utilitarianism" from the field of Philosophy, and provides a short, snappy description. CON does not however, offer any supporting information - https://en.wikipedia.org... Philosophy:,https://en.wikipedia.org... Utilitarianism. The field of Philosophy covers every aspect of the human condition, with sub-branches in the sciences and other areas of human endeavour. This field provides for many points of view and describes them thoroughly. Through a process of learned debate the field of Philosophy has established it"s knowledge. It is faulty thinking that leads entities to define themselves or others with limiting labels. However this type of thinking is CON has done. Loosely considered and applied points of view will always lead to misunderstanding. "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. Many without knowledge of "Utilitarianism" will find it is very similar to how they, themselves think and also the society around them think. Advertising is a concept born out of the society of its time which was largely "Utilitarian". Therefore it is not surprising it is seen to be moral from that same point of view. Other points of view from Philosophy Fallibilism: (https://en.wikipedia.org...) " provides that all entities are fallible. This is not a moral judgement merely an observable fact. 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. Morality: (https://en.wikipedia.org...) " PRO"s states that this at the centre of this discussion. Conclusions. PRO has tried to avoid using any inappropriate or discursive "Labels" in to this debate and will continue to do so. This is one of the reasons why PRO"s argument"s may be awkward (as in the "awkwardness of youth"), of course all the others are due to the inherent fallibility of entities(people). If an entity accepts it"s inherent fallibility while still striving to over come it, that is right thinking. When ideas are looked at with limiting points of view that idea is only valid from that point of view. Any point of view on morality requires an all inclusive point of view. Any time an idea is forced on another entities(person) consciousness, there is a breach of right. An untested (by moral standards) idea when forced on another entity(person). That entity(person) is exposed to an idea that carries no moral certitude. Moral certitude cannot be established by any other entity other than Humanity which is an all inclusive idea and word for people. At this time the is no knowledge that I know of other than Philosophy the can help derive/describe Humanity in terms of moral certitude. PRO has now proven that there is no currently available true(moral) answer to "Adverts are evil" as there is no current authority that speaks for Humanity.. PRO states when "value" creates a humanitarian calculation of "one over many", that calculation needs to be morally correct. To ensure moral correctness, the "value" needs to be correct and that the idea(or anything else) given(forced) that is powered by that "value" is correct as well. PRO states that advertising purpose is to put information in a place that is accessible to as many willing recipients as possible. However does not consider the affect of that information on UN-willing recipients. To me morally unforgivable, hence evil. PRO the fact that software exists to prevent adverts from being seen and that this software is both free and widely used. Show that many UN-willing recipients of advertising are doing something about it. PRO an idea that is fundamental to advertising but not obvious is: entities(people) do not look for the knowledge they need. This when translated rather rudely is: entities(people) are lazy. PRO the only form of advertising that can be excluded from this discussion is "self" advertising, such as shouting and covering something with your own expressions (that you own) - (not full list). This translates into things like, a shop full of advertising aimed so the shop can improve itself. An artists painting, sculpture and Muhammad Ali and his outrageous bragging (after all, it brought his opponents to him) CON please continue to report on my short comings in the nobel art of debating. From that I learn a most important skill. Readers I am not skilled enough to take on the world (my intention).