<p>I said companies should be allowed to advertise harmful things.</p>
<li><p>it violates peoples’ liberties, and liberty is one of the things the Us was founded upon</p></li>
<li><p>it could lead to a slippery slope of the government interveing a lot of unwanted aspects of our personal lives.</p></li>
<li><p>it would hinder the economy, as less people would be buying stuff</p></li>
<li><p>even though people say that advertising the products would cause people to buy stuff and do harm to each other, people could still choose to not buy the prodcuts and avoid any possible health risks</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I said advertising potentially harmful products should be legal.</p>
<ul>
<li>Banning them is injust and goes against everything the US was founded on.</li>
<li>It would create chaos - lawsuits, galore - because "potentially harmful" is subjective.</li>
<li>It would create an economic "slump." So much money is injected into the economy because of advertisements.</li>
<li>People have brains. No one is forcing them to buy potentially harmful products. (this was my counterargument to "harming public health")</li>
</ul>
<p>I was against.
-bad for the environment (more factories = land / air pollution?? hahaha...)
-horrible outcomes for physical health (tanning = cancer, smoking = cancer)
- bad ethics for kids (alcohol being advertised can lead to children having a drunken life. )</p>
<p>I didn't say it exactly like that...but along the lines.</p>
<p>I used the "it would stimulate the economy" as a c.a.</p>
<p>Wow i definetly did not have time to think as deep as you guys. I had some arguments, and i back them up.</p>
<p>1st body- Health issues..cancer, obesity
2nd- Violence..videogames/columbine shooting
3rd- Safety- talked about the toy recall from the company in asia with the traces of lead.</p>
<p>I was for allowing advertising:
1. Right to advertise just as much as companies promoting healthy products
2. People should practice discernment when buying items/more legal ramble
3. Led down a slippery slope to government intervention in very trivial things.(this got a little ranty, but it was the only point I could argue well.)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Talked about how injuries could occur (cancer from tanning beds, etc.)</p></li>
<li><p>Talked about how catastrophic occurrences could become inevitable (wide spread occurance of obesity in America) if advertisements aren't labeled properly...and honestly (I used Big Macs from McDonalds to justify how people should be entitled to nutrient labels no matter what and they shouldn't have to ask for one.)</p></li>
<li><p>This was the qualification paragraph: I talked about how companies should create more detailed brochures and/or offer free consultations/information sessions to fully debrief perspective buyers about the pros and cons of the product--not just the pros. </p></li>
<li><p>I wrote my concluding paragraph in one minute, so it probably was not so great. It was about two sentences.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Overall, it wasn't that bad. I'm hoping for a 12.</p>
<p>I was against harmful advertising:
1. Cigarette companies promote their product by sponsoring key racing/sport teams. I said something about Micheal Schumacher(spelled it wrong on the essay...).
2. Something about how in recent years, a cigarette company started marketing flavored cigarettes or something to children. They are condemning children to disease for the most part...
3. Alcohol companies do the same as cigarette companies. They make the product look like "the cool thing to do" but they never show the damage alcohol can do to the body outside of 'drunk driving'.</p>
<p>i was pro-advertising and said most of the things you guys have said with this viewpoint</p>
<p>i'm just worried that a couple of my sentences were a little too simply-put and had a few awkward wordings.. i'm still hoping for at least a 9 though... i had 2 examples/theories, one counter-example and then a rebuttal to the counter example that concluded my essay</p>
<p>Haha I went anti-advertising on spur of the moment. Brought up a Supreme Court case the government can use to defend itself, talked about social contract, etc. If the govt got a copy of my essay, they would have been pleased :)</p>
<p>i went with the whole companies have the right to advertise route.</p>
<p>-advertising is a form of speech, defense of freedom of speech
-counter argument: "some might refer to the case of camel cig's in the 90s...cool camel mascot...teenagers...blahblahblah" however, the company does not choose to do harm with their products unto people, the people choose to do harm unto themselves.
-continuing counter argument, concerning warning labels and how their wrong and how it's the consumer's responsibility to inform themselves, etc.
-concluded in saying that ads do not cause cancer, it's the consumer's choice to give themselves cancer or obesity or diabetes and that infringing upon the rights of the company and violating democratic principles is not going to cure or treat any condition.</p>
<p>likewise, if the tobacco industry got a hold of my essay, they would have been pleased.</p>
<p>i'm kind of worried though because i had stress shivers and cramps through the entire essay and my handwriting isn't good as it is... meh... i blame that science section.</p>
<p>I was pro:
-People should decide what's harmful and what's not
-Corporations survive by advertising
-Eliminating one type of advertising would lead to more bans (sexual references, violent, etc)</p>
<p>I went for banning harmful advertisement as a spur of the moment as well.</p>
<ul>
<li>Talked about how America has the largest percentage of obese people and the correlation between junk food/fast food advertisement.</li>
<li>Talked about tanning and link to cancer.</li>
<li>Talked about how the corporations make money in exchange for our health</li>
<li>Identified counterargument of freedom of advertisement by saying a line should be drawn when that advertisement becomes harmful</li>
<li>Also used some psychology and explained how advertisement has a major influence over our subconscious mind</li>
</ul>
<p>Mainly, though, I was extremely exhausted and so I don't think I did too well. I made it more humorous to cover up the faults of the essay (Threw in some puns =) ).</p>