That we should not target children in advertisements

I was someone disappointed that some of my argument are not fully countered. Many are countered, but not fully. This is the whole thing that I have been trying to point out since Round 2: >Advertising is bad. It will gives bad effect to mature aged person and children. Instead of waiting it too late until mature-aged. An example will help. 8 yo kid: "Daddy, I want to buy that $500 Barbie Doll!" Dad : "Don't buy it. First it's pointless [insert morale lesson] Effect : Kids know their limit 15 yo kid: "I will buy that $5000 Alligator skinned bag!" Who's going to stop that kid? You may say parents, but unfortunately, kids who's are growing up are not gonna listen your advice. In this age where they're in 'transition mode', they will try to breakout, achieve freedom, including freedom from their parents. Putting morale lesson here will be too late. Here's what I have been trying to say since round 2. Instead of waiting until you're teen (or mature by age, whatever) and it turns out too late, like the example above, it's better to expose them since beginning. Pros mentioned that the reason that some government make some age limit, is because mature person make better decision, but better decision comes from childhood morale lesson. When someone's smoking, they don't blindfold their kid. No, they tell the kid that the person is smoking, and smoking is bad. Same logic applies to advertisement, they don't blindfold their kid when advertisement appears on TV, they tell the kid that is advertisement, and advertisement is bad for you. Rinse and repeat from age 0 until they mature enough. ( Pros argues that 17 years is short, but I honestly think that he haven't come up with a source that says so. ) Mature doesn't come instantly, it comes from lesson and experience. You don't suddenly turns instantly to become wise when you reach 17. You become wise from morale lesson. I like to mentioned that Pros keeps looking "to the past", by giving bad examples. Pros never considered if my idea is successful "to the future". Past is to know what's wrong with us, NOT to blame the future. In the past, we learned that we had not put enough emphasis on good parenting. Pros give 2 good examples of bullying and obese. This is what I emphasis. My solution is better parenting. We haven't try out 'better parenting', why scared out of hell and say that for 100% that 'better parenting' will fail? Again, bullying, obese, consumerism occurs due to bad parenting. My solution is better parenting. This is what I have being trying to say since round 2. It doesn't contradicts my argument, it's the reasoning of my argument. I'd like to give a quote to close my conclusion. We know fire. Fire, when small is good, you can cook food, heat your self, boil water. However, if it turns huge, it will burn everything and become enemy. Same logic applies to advertisement. When advertisement effect is controlled, it's good, when not it's bad. The controller is parents and government. Personal note: I'd like to argue that parents and teacher are pretty synonymous. I mean teacher's is your parent in school right? That's why I never bother to talk about school, because they give the same effect. Education. Unrelated note: Argh, 3 round is too short. I'd like to thank my Pros for providing good debate. This is my first debate. Thank you and may the best debater wins.