The Instigator
Yoshi33
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

Junk food advertising should not be band

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,542 times Debate No: 17749
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (9)

 

Yoshi33

Con

I will show you tha Junk food advertising should not be band

Advertising on television does not cause obesity. Advertising on television does not cause health problems. Eating badly causes these problems, not advertising.

Now I would like to discuss banning.

My first point is that banning something doesn't work. In fact it can have the opposite effect. My second point is that we can't escape advertising – advertising is everywhere.

Firstly, ladies and gentlemen, banning something does not work! In particular, banning the advertising of a product does not solve the problem.
My second point is that we cannot escape advertising. Children cannot escape advertising. Advertising is everywhere! Junk food advertising is everywhere.

Whenever I get into a car, I drive past McDonalds, the famous Great Golden Arches that symbolise an "m".

Thankyou
FREEDO

Pro

Greetings to the viewers and my opponent whom I wish the best of luck(on debates other than this one :P) and thank for instigating the debate on this marvelous site.

ARGUMENTS

Firstly, Yoshi makes some interesting arguments but I assert that none of them really get down to the task at hand.

Before I continue, let's lay out some solid definitions.

Junk food:
noun
A high-calorie food that is low in nutritional value. [1]

Advertising:
noun
The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media. [2]

Band:
noun
A group of musicians playing together. [3]

Now, I can see clearly that Yoshi makes a lot of non-sequiturs. By discrediting critiques against junk food and advertising he thinks he can discredit any critiques made against junk food advertising being a good band name. I contend that this is not so.

The reputation of a phrase is certainly something to consider in choosing a band name. However, just because something doesn't have a bad rap doesn't mean that it has a good one. You also have to consider what sort of crowd your going for with your music. "Disemboweled organs" may not have a good rap, usually, but for a metal band it might be just right.

So the burden lays on my opponent to show just what group "Junk food advertising" might appeal to. Do you know any organizations that exist which have brought together like-minded obese, television-glued individuals to develop a musical culture?

The success of the sound of a band name is dependent upon general opinion. I contend that Junk food advertising is just not something most people could get around and say "Hey..ya know, that would make a real good band name!" No, you won't see that happening. It's purpose is confusing, vague at the least, void at the worst; it's length is obnoxious, which most do not appreciate; it's phonaesthetics is just plain dull and uncaptivating.

Band-naming is an art, my friend, and nothing--JUST NOTHING--is artsy about Junk food advertising. This makes it unfit to be a band name.

I turn it over to Con.

SOURCES
1. http://www.yourdictionary.com...
2. http://www.yourdictionary.com...
3. http://www.yourdictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Yoshi33

Con

Thankyou FREEDO for being my competitor for this debate.

FREEDO has made pretty good points but I have made very convincing arguments but I have made much better arguments.

Firstly banning something will obviously not work and secondly banning food advertisers would make the company advertising the product lose money.

Now I will discuss banning.

Firstly banning something will obviously not work, advertising of cigarettes in Australia has been banned for so many years, yet people all around Australia continue to smoke.

Banning of junk food advertising was done in Sweden ---- years ago, yet statistics show no evidence in the reduction of childhood obesity or related illnesses.

Secondly banning food advertisers would make the company advertising the product lose money.
If the banning of advertising products happens all of the big companies will lose their money, for example Mcdonalds stores could go broke if this happens.

Eating badly causes health problems, not advertising.

To sum this argument up, Ladies and gentlemen, we do not need to ban the advertising of junk food.
I have demonstrated to you firstly that banning something does not work. In fact banning something often makes it more desirable.

And my second point was that big companies would lose money.

Eating badly causes health problems, not advertising.
Thank you.
FREEDO

Pro

I SEE THERE WAS A TERRIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING!! It appears that this debate is ACTUALLY about whether junk food advertising should BANNED, not band!!! Woe, was me!!--wasting a whole round on gibberish!!!

Now I can clearly see that my opponent's arguments are not non-sequiturs, in-fact, they are fool-proof!!--perfect!!--incapable of being dismantled!! He has made a beautiful case for why junk food advertising should not be banned!!

Not that I would want to refute any of his arguments, after-all, he made my own case for me. The resolution is that it should not be banned and my position in the debate is Pro.

Banning doesn't work. It would hurt the economy. Wouldn't lower obesity. All fantastic arguments!

CHEERS!! =D

Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by quarterexchange 2 years ago
quarterexchange
Should junk food advertising be choir?

See what I did there? I did a play on words with Con's spelling mistake. I swapped "band", one type of musical group, with another one, "choir". Get it?
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
RFD = reason for decision
Posted by randolph7 2 years ago
randolph7
I keep seeing RFD what's that mean?
Posted by marcuscato 2 years ago
marcuscato
Thanks, this made my day.
Posted by randolph7 2 years ago
randolph7
This is by far the funniest debate I've seen on here yet. Everyone is looking at me wondering why I'm laughing so hard. Shhh.
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
@lickdafoot: WHOA lmao I didn't notice that. I'm changing my vote.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 2 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@ 000ike's vote RFD

That was not a typo. He said "band" TWICE. It was deliberate incorrect spelling. If it were a typo, it wouldve happened only once.
Posted by Lickdafoot 2 years ago
Lickdafoot
@ 00ike. do you even realize that Con was fighting FOR pro's argument? It's one thing to get past the spelling, its another to get past someone arguing on the wrong side of the argument.
Posted by FREEDO 2 years ago
FREEDO
Such an exhausting and well-fought debate.
Posted by DramoR 2 years ago
DramoR
Arguing whether Banning works or not is ok, however I dont think it provides enough merits as to whether you should ban junk food or not.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro obviously was sarcastic, and knew that the resolution word 'band' was 'banned', though that costs him a point for conduct but gives him a point for spelling and grammar. Pro's arguments took advantage of that, and at least ensured a win for him.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 2 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is self-evident! Though I contend that freedo is a cad for such tactics!
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 2 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons spelling and grammar was off, Pro had better sources and was more convincing.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 2 years ago
larztheloser
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments on the negative, so I guess arguments needs to go to pro. "Band" was just silly as a spelling mistake. However, I felt the semantic argument was unfair. It was clear what con was talking about and pro's last round should have come out earlier. This costs pro conduct. Con should make sure they select the right side of the topic.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 2 years ago
XStrikeX
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Nicely debated while incorporating tragic, sarcastic comedy. Kudos to Freedo.
Vote Placed by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost before it started, apparently he does not understand the concept of a double negative.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 2 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the case for Pro thus he conceded. He also had bad S
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was absolutely hilarious. I believe the CDT should go to Pro because even though Pro nitpicked, it was obvious that Con did not make a spelling mistake but rather deliberately tried to use an unconventional spelling seeing as how he said "band" twice. in short, it seems like Con is inviting his argument to be nitpicked. SG - tied, neither side made many mistakes."band" loses Pro cdt pts but not sg. ARG tied, both were arguing two completely different things. Sources - Only Pro provided any
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 2 years ago
Lickdafoot
Yoshi33FREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's whole case was a mess. Pro was humorous about the whole thing. Yoshi33, focus a little bit and look over what you are doing before you post it.