Wootan insists that advertisements regulate on their
advertisement because their target is a mainly child. She believes that these
advertisements should involve more nutritious food therefore children are
attracted to it and start eating healthy. She show statistics of advertising
fast foods to the children and ever since she believes a certain percent of
these kids get a little overweight as years pass by. Her strategy is to prevent
obesity and she believes regulating the advertisements can help children in
becoming obese in a later age. Liodice believes that we all have freedom of
speech therefore we can express what they want. He believes there shouldn’t be
a limit to what people advertise because they wont is able to show what they
are fully capable of. I believe Wootan makes the stronger argument because it
does target everyone and its not always a message everyone understands. People
get manipulated in ads and I think if there was more regulation it would
prevent any health matters to consumers. She provided with the example of
obesity and which I believe is a huge problem today in the US so I would have
to agree with Wootan.
I completely agree with you. Wootan did seem to show the best argument even though they both made valid points. I was able to see that Liodice’s argument was based on us having the freedom of speech in the United states and it was not fair to restrict that in advertising but the facts that the author was using were not accurate and sometimes were even misleading. Overall, Wootan’s argument was delivered in a more logical manner with not just supportive facts but by also giving alternative options. She was able to see the problem at hand and give attainable options.
ReplyDelete