Islamic advertisements on the television.

My position is that Islamic advertisements should not be used to make Americans more tolerant of Muslims. Contention 1: There aren't enough choco-chewing fatsos to merit such wasteful use of resources. 1.There are several technical problems with this proposition. This form of advertisement is obviously made to target the intolerant factions within America. Taking a reasonable approach, I'm sure my opponent must realize that not everyone in America are politically uneducated or biased. This also means that we don't really know what number or proportion of America actually needs some form of tolerance-promoting medium for intolerant thoughts/behavior toward the Islamic culture & people. If my opponent cannot prove that the intolerant faction is large enough to merit spending millions to blast subliminal pro-Muslim messages, then this rebuttal stands. 2. If the faction is insubstantial in size, what harm would it do in the larger political sphere? The US, now edging toward a $20 trillion debt, is nearly in no position to actually effect unjust culture-based military or social bias. This is clear in the citizens' overwhelming support for retracting soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. The current political opinions lean toward a regressing US involvement in world-policing. Even Republicans, known for their quasi-imperialist statutes in much earlier years, are working to enhance the UN, not the US's, ability to voice and enforce political & socioeconomic justice. This potentially small party of racist are no cause for harm. 3. The US educational & cultural environment is already permeated with a tolerance-promoting atmosphere. According to several polls, the majority of the United States is currently more tolerant than intolerant. This means that the number of racists are far outnumbered by the number of non-racists. In fact, just in the last decade, the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) community has, in the form of popular public opinion gained landmark rights of equality that they never would have had 50 years ago. The fact is, the gargantuan boned critics of America are a dwindling species. This being so, there really is no need to worry about putting on TV ads for a majority who already agree with the ads' positions. It's a waste of resources. Contention 2: Is TV really the right medium? Pro: "So that's what I want to debate today, whether Islamic advertisements should be used to make Americans more tolerant of muslims." Response: Let's look at how this was worded. PRO wants to use Islamic advertisements to... (wait wait, Islamic advertisements?) ...make Americans more tolerant of Muslims. Are you kidding me? That's like saying you want to send emails with your garbage can. While sending e-mails is a good idea, the garbage can is the wrong medium. 99% of Americans do not have any knowledge of the Islamic language, let alone understand long drawn-out social ads. It'd therefore be both impractical and expensive to place these alien ads in such a way as to have them be presented to the entirety of the 96.7% of the 360,000,000 Americans living in the US with TV's. You could feed millions starving African children for a year with this money. You could clean up a good chunk of the environment, subsidize lumber companies and stall the destruction of the Amazon. You could provide the poor with enough to get by for quite a while. You could save lives! Why would you waste it getting these astronomical-ice-cream-tubbing tubbies to give grudging approval of Islam?! Who cares about their worthless approval? Think of the starving African children! That aside, TV is losing its sphere of influence. Statistically, more people prefer the internet over the TV. People don't even watch TV on TV anymore, they do it on the internet. With millions... billions of hours of declining television viewership, there is no reason to believe that the ad will actually have significant impact. The internet is the way to go. Another point: These people have months and years of built-up bias (12 years approximately since 9-11, possibly even more stemming from before), do you really think 30 seconds of promotional advertisements would be able to reverse that? Contention 3: There is no reason for anything. Let's create a chain in which we find whether or not tolerance, the end of which my opponent, through TV ads, theoretical achieves, is objectively imperative. We'll start with the first link of the chain: 1.'Islamic Advertisements should be used to make Americans more tolerant of muslims' Why is this important? 2. Tolerance creates a better environment for society; people are better able to coexist, to live in peace and to be happy. What makes happiness and coexistence, a potential tenet for survival, important? 3. Survival and happiness are important for the well-being of humanity How is the well-being and humanity of any objective importance? 4. It is not, people want to survive. We want to live in peace and happiness, what's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong, freedom of speech bro. It's just that the chain ends in the subjective 'want'. Since it is subjective, it cannot, by definition, be, to any degree, imperative. The means proposed (Islamic TV ads) cannot be justified since the end (tolerance) is of no importance whatsoever. Therefore Islamic advertisements to make Americans more tolerant of Muslims should not be implemented. If PRO cannot offer any substantial reasoning for tolerance, then the proposition falls and CON wins.