Introduction>> Burgers, chips, soda, and candy ? should governments ban junk food ads or trust people to decide for themselves? Some believe these ads lure kids into unhealthy habits, while others argue that education and personal choice matter more. What’s the best way to protect teens’ health, minds, and wallets?
Constructive Debater 1 Loren Banning junk food ads removes temptation at the source, especially for kids who can’t always recognize marketing tactics. Similar to how cravings fade when candy disappears from the kitchen counter, fewer ads mean kids will think of snacks less often. Countries with ad restrictions have reported lower childhood obesity rates. It’s a simple, low-cost policy that sends a message to companies: promote healthier choices. Parents can’t monitor every screen their children see, but smart rules can clean up the airwaves and support better habits for all.
Constructive Debater 2 Olivia Let people make their own choices ? lasting habits come from knowledge, not bans. My friends and I often see fast-food ads, but we still pick healthy foods because we understand nutrition. Ads help fund sports events and cartoons, so banning them could hurt what we love. Freedom also pushes companies to innovate healthier menus because health-conscious consumers demand it. Furthermore, teaching media literacy will empower teens to think critically instead of falling for slogans. Encouraging responsibility through education works better than heavy-handed censorship from the start.
Rebuttal Debater 1 Loren Education helps, but the ad industry spends billions shaping cravings before lessons can stick. Relying on education alone is like tossing a bucket of water at a forest fire ? ineffective without added support. Early limits on junk food exposure help prevent lifelong habits that strain healthcare systems. We already regulate ads for harmful products like tobacco and alcohol to protect youth. Junk food, which also impacts long-term health, deserves the same level of responsibility and regulation.
Rebuttal Debater 2 Olivia Blanket bans oversimplify a complex issue. Kids still encounter junk food ads on jerseys, vending machines, and gaming streams. Balanced taxes and clear food labels support informed decisions without restricting free speech. Access to affordable fresh food and regular exercise matter more than silencing commercials. My cousin lives in a country with strict ad rules, but still buys energy drinks daily because they’re tasty and affordable. Guidance and choice work better than censorship for teens.
Judge’s Comments Strict ad limits reduce temptation, but lasting habits grow from education and informed choice. The best solution combines clear regulations, honest labeling, and strong media literacy, helping young viewers stay healthy while preserving their freedom to make smart, independent decisions.
May For The Junior Times junior/1750661873/1613368104
1. (Constructive Debater 1 Loren) What happens when kids see fewer ads?
2. (Constructive Debater 2 Olivia) What example does Olivia give about food choice?
3. (Rebuttal Debater 1 Loren) What habits does early ad exposure create?
4. (Rebuttal Debater 2 Olivia) Why did her cousin still buy energy drinks?
1. (Constructive Debater 1 Loren) How do you decide what snacks to eat?
2. (Constructive Debater 2 Olivia) Do you believe rules or learning works better?
3. (Rebuttal Debater 1 Loren) Do you think ads can shape what people want?
4. (Rebuttal Debater 2 Olivia) Should people choose what to eat without bans?
Introduction>>
Rebuttal Debater 1 Loren 
