99.999% of advertising is shit to make a rich person feel like they are doing something to drive business.

Like dude owned the first bike shop I worked at was paying a bunch to place ads on various platforms. I asked if he had ever actually tested that it works. He just gave me a puzzled look. I told him simply pick any product you feel is universally in high demand and try and give it away with no strings attached. See how long it takes to get someone to show up and claim the thing. It took 3 weeks and I am nearly certain the person that showed up was one of his personal friends. We stopped advertising online after that. Ads may increase awareness in some cases, but they are mostly ineffective media. People are just too stupid to be objective and actually test things; instead assuming the existence of the option to advertise validates its efficacy

"if vitamins were effective, they'd use them for beating children!"

You're misunderstanding the use of debate.

If saws were effective they would use them to hammer in nails.

Wrong tool for the job is never going to be effective. Show me a politician who rarely (if ever) debates and gets elected from advertising alone.

They used to, back when the League of Women voters ran the debates and asked real questions. That's why they stopped allowing that.

Fun unsolicited social psych lesson: in terms of persuasion, spontaneous messaging is catchier but thoughtful messaging is more likely to have a stronger long term impact. Often best to use both.

It's not always the same level as debate, but the idea is there. Why buy? It's got safety standards. It builds strong bones. It's good for the environment. Good? Ok now here's emotional music and a celebrity you like.

Research shows spontaneous messaging without the cognitive side isn't going to sway attitudes in a meaningful way, although the latter might be needed to get attention (and most won't work if someone is already decided, then you really do need debate lol).

That said, I'm pretty sure the average ad is just trying to keep a brand in public consciousness, since that's taught in marketing programs. Some research on associative learning might support that but I think it's weak at best.

Many ad approaches are based on objective facts, logic and reasoning.

A lot of advertising is built around making consumers feel good for buying particular products, not convincing them to buy in the first place. Debate in this context would be useless because it's more about confirmation bias than coercion.

Debate isn't effective, and its main purpose is theatrical. It is basically the modern day equivalent of gladiator fights, except with the side effect that it platforms and legitimises the opinions of the participants, no matter how extreme.

There is now mountains of scientific evidence showing the debates have limited to no effect at changing people's minds. Instead, simply making friends and spending time with different perspective is effective.

This article won’t change your mind. Here’s why | Sarah Stein Lubrano | The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/18/change-mind-evidence-arguing-social-relationships

It isn't more effective or cost effective. It may still be effective.

Because debates in the US are often set up to be a fight with a winner and loser. Real debates are about learning and instigating truth. Those debates are effective.