THW Ban fast food companies from advertising to children
Debate Rounds (3)
I will be against this resolution and my first argument I would like to present is obviously the freedom of choice.
Is it the fast for companies fault for advertising and making children obese? No. People in America have the right to eat whatever they want and when we ban that option, freedom is disabled to practically everyone in the united states. But let me go more in depth on this.
It is simply not the companies fault, but the people's fault for choosing to buy junk food. If your holding a gun to someone and shoot, is it the gun's fault? Ladies and gentleman, the answer is no. People are responsible for their health and it is their option and fault at making themselves obese and eating at their own free will. My opponents might say that children cannot make their own decision themselves. But isn't this why we have parents? To control the way they eat and having common knowledge that giving their kids this kind of food will and might increase health risks? But it is not the companies fault, the people have a blame for this too. For enabling them to consume junk food and becoming obese.
My second argument is when we ban advertising, the whole industry falls and people looses jobs, which harms their life and the economy
Half the economy depends on food sales, especially from fast food restaurants like McDonald's, Burger King, etc. and advertising is the only way to let the companies voices be heard to people who are willing to buy this. When we take away the advertisements of these companies, sales would go down significantly and it would result in a loss of the economy. But not only that, it impacts the peoples lives who depends on there job. When the industry falls, jobs would be lost and their whole income would disappear when we ban advertising.
Today I want to focus on the fact that the companies have no fault, but instead the people have the wrongs to do this. We are also thinking about lives that could have a potential of becoming a havoc when their jobs are cut off, and the economies loss. Both of these have significant impact to the world.
Please take in consideration of what I have said and be sure to vote for the opposition.
Anyone willing to argue against my case can vote side proposition
Thank you very much for my voice to be heard.
I accept. While I wouldn't support an outright ban, I will try to argue from that position.
I have stated my arguments above and I would like to hear your side of the debate in arguments and refutation in the second round please.
Nevertheless, let me continue my supposedly called "rant" on my side
Before I start, I have a response to Greg4586 comment
Although humanity has in fact showed this to us, it is however still wrong that the freedom is taken away from bans.
And I stress that in my freedom of choice argument, that we should NOT ban something the people choose to have. We cannot blame restaurants for the peoples choices.
Moving on, I say that When the economy falls, peoples lives can be ruined because their job gives them money, and without that job it would be harder for them to make a living. If we make the ban right now, how will they find new jobs?
And I cannot stress enough that the ban taken place is wrong due to the fact that our society chooses whether to consume "junk food"
Again, thank you triangle.128k for your entry :D
As I mentioned before, I wouldn't support A ban on fast food companies advertising to children. I will however be playing devil's advocate and arguging from that position.
The staggering amount of advertising.
4.6 billion dollars was spent on advertising unhealthy eating. In comparison, only 116 million dollars was spent on healthy foods in the year of 2012. Because of this large difference, it would obligate people, especially children to eat fast food more than they should. Due to this high amount of spending, it would lead to fast food companies likely building more resteraunts everywhere, and advertising more and more. Something should be done about this. While people are given the choice, fast food might taste good and showing it all the time will obviously make people eat it more. Thus meaning making the choice is harder. It triggers an emotional response, so it can't be blamed on the people all the time.
Further more, my opponent argues that banning advertising would collapse the industry and people would loose jobs and the economy would shrink. While it may seem like this at first, eventually it will give resteraunts that sell more healthy food a chance to employ people. Further more, there are many other jobs people could seek. Slowly restricting advertising over time would also make much less of a sudden impact (if none) then an outright ban.
I do not have much time left on this debate, since I forgot about it so I will end my arguments here. I will post more in the next round.
hellywon forfeited this round.
Con forfeited, vote pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.