Eka Devi

THAT ADVERTISING IS HARMFUL

Ads, short for advertising, used to be just in your daily newspaper or street sign, or even on TV. Now, ads have gone everywhere. It spreads through the world-wide known Internet, mobile apps, and others.

Even though around 40% of the ads are public service announcements, around 60% of all ads are business advertivesments. (Taken from www.patreonnews.com). Well, some of these business ads are quite inapropriate.

Alright, so the topic is that is this house (let’s just say it’s “we”) believes that advertising is harmful, there are some reasons that support this motion. Also, i forgot to mention that i agree with this motion.

First of all, as i said earlier, there are more business ads than P.S.A. ads (Public Service Announcement). And some of these advertisements, which are the business ones, are inapropriate. Like the ads that use female salesmen that try to look inapropriate on TV or ads in Internet. Also, there might be ads that are weird for kids, like this one, ever caught on internet, is a gay cruise advertising. Now that is just 100% inapropriate and 100% weird, imagine, when kids open the Internet and seeing that, the kids will be like “Uh, mum? What is gay?” You’d be very surprised and feel weird about your kids saying that right? Don’t anyone fell weird about that, of course many people felt weird about that.

Secon of all, Advertisements may have some “Inapropriate” words. Like ads on America that says you are imperfect, and you need to buy their stuff so you become perfect. Well, it is obviously bad for kids that watch it. Because that ad uses the kind of phsycology trick that makes them fell that they HAVE TO buy that particular product or they will be IMPERFECT. This is really bad for children, because they do not know that it’s just an ad, most kids will just believe that quickly. Our lives are perfect, even when we don’t have the products, this is another example of why advertisements are harmful for us and children.

So, in conclusion, this argument should stand because of the reasons above thank you.

That government should not give help subsidy for people who choose unhealthy lifestyle

Recently, a lot of people choose unhealthy lifestyle. This is a quite – big problem. Because unhealthy lifestyle destroys parts of their healthy life.
The government tries everything to reduce this problem. But only some works. One of the most, quite efficient, way of helping is by giving subsidy.
The topic, is government should not give help of subsidy to people who choose unhealthy lifestyle. I disagree with this, because of, - People that choose unhealthy life are people too, - Also, the government’s job is to help their people in any way.
Alright, first of all, it’s beacues that they are still people. It is even written in the topic/motion, which is PEOPLE. They have rights to have their subsidy, if the government shuts down subsidy to these people, it might start off a worse event, like protests and others.
Second. The government’s job is to help their people in any way. If plan A does not work, then he will have to use plan B. In this event, the plan A and B is the subsidy. Because it’s their job, if this topic stands, it will decrease one of the government’s important job, besides ruling and bringing law. Also, subsidy can be in many ways, maybe the unhealthy person will realize and use their subsidy to pay for medical assistance bills.
So, in conclusion. Government SHOULD give subsidy to people who choose unhealthy lifestyle. Because, it’s the people’s right to have subsidy. Also, beacuse it is already their job. So now, I state that this topic/motion should fall.