Each speaker may speak for six minutes, and there will be a warning bell at four minutes, with two bells at six minutes to indicate that the speaker's time has expired. A bell will be rung continuously if a speaker exceeds the maximum time by more than one minute. Finally, before we begin, please ensure that all mobile phones are switched off.

The topic for this debate is that we should ban advertising of unhealthy products. Please welcome the first speaker of the affirmative to open the debate.

[APPLAUSE]

So currently, we see companies selling unhealthy food, promoting their products on TVs and billboards, and essentially coercing Australian citizens into the excessive consumption of junk food. So this is to the detriment, that we are raising generations with bad diets and eating habits, to the extreme that it's affecting our country's health for these companies' own personal profit. And we see the harms to people becoming overweight to the point of obesity, and having health issues such as heart diseases, suffering from fatigue, and a general lower level of fitness, which is essentially contributing to this lower quality of life for these people.

So under our model, we're targeting the most unhealthy products. So this is junk food stalls and junk food chains. These include places like McDonald's, Hungry Jack's Red Rooster, Coke products, and Cadbury products. So this is any major junk food establishment selling things with a certain amount of sugar, fat, and unhealthy content.

And we're targeting their TV ads, their billboard ads, having their logos displayed in promotions, as well as using cartoon and movie characters in promotion. So I'll be speaking about how they use false advertising, targeting vulnerable stakeholders, and the harms of these diets. And my second speaker will be talking about changing the mindsets of Australians, and the principles behind these companies that we don't stand for.

So on my first point, McDonald's pour millions of dollars into advertising. And they earn billions of dollars from providing unhealthy food to our citizens. Their power lies in their ability to target people. And we're going to break down how they do this.

So in the average McDonald's ad, they use bright, attractive colors that are symbolic of McDonald's that we associate with this brand. They use these amazing panning shots of burgers, presenting their food as this incredible tasty thing that everybody should experience. And then they bring in these sound effects, the tantalizing sounds of sizzling bacon. And this all laid over a professional orchestral score that's uplifting in spirit, and makes this seem like this grand experience. So they create an environment in their ads that is so immersive, that ties McDonald's food to their colors, and logos, and this incredible experience that you believe that you will have in their store, and eating their products.

So then what they do is they take these ads, and they put it in every advert in prime TV time, when there are families and there are kids watching. So they play these over and over again, so that people have the largest exposure to this possible. And this begins to change the mindsets of Australians, as they've had this drilled into them, that this brand, for example, McDonald's, is linked to this experience of happiness. And they associate this happiness with this food.

And then what we see is these effects from that, so that every time they drive past McDonald's, they remember this feeling of happiness and contentment. And we see that this is essentially going to cause people to go into these stores, and buy their products. These products are high in fat, they're high in sugar, and they're convenient, and they're easy to eat. So essentially, they're attractive for people. And over time, becomes a habit, despite these harms to the consumers.

So we see this as why their advertising is essentially false. And the products that junk food advertises aren't these glorious things that they are advertised to be, that they're leading the Australian population to believe they are. In reality, they are full of sugar, they're full of fat, and they're an un-nutritious meal. And therefore, we believe that people aren't able to consent to the harms that they're having from eating this food. They're convinced, they're coerced, and they're manipulated to associating junk food with feelings of pleasure, meaning that they don't make this consensual decision to step into this store, and sacrifice their own health for the taste of this meal.

So secondly, we want to look at these vulnerable stakeholders. So essentially, we have two of these in this debate. Firstly, we have the kids, and secondly, we have these uneducated adults.

So firstly with kids, junk food advertising targets children with their cartoon characters, and gifts and rewards. And they're essentially bribing the children to come into their stores and to eat their products. The other thing that we want to establish is that kids know that they have a certain pestering power over their parents. They know to a point that their parents want to make them happy. So the more that they bug them, that to an extent, they're going to be allowed to access this food, whether or not their parents want them to.

And as they've been told that they're getting this reward of their favorite movie characters, and this experience that has been built up for them, this is therefore what they choose to use their pestering power on. So this is essentially the manipulation of children in our society who cannot consent, as they don't have the experience, they don't have the education, and don't have a developed enough brain to weigh up the negative effects that this will have on their body, and make the decision to eat this food. So therefore, we see that targeting these kids is essentially a manipulation.

And then secondly, we have these uneducated adults with families. So the education of the detriments of eating junk food is a relatively new concept. And we've only relatively recently looked into obesity and it causes, and essentially established that large amounts of fat and sugar in a diet is a leading cause to obesity. So lots of adults in our society have been raised without the education about how bad these convenient products are for their health.

And they're continually manipulated by advertising, to the point where we have whole families believing that it's OK to go to junk food stores and eat their dinner there every night, to have Coke in the fridge the same way that families would have water in their fridge. So by taking away this advertising, we're allowing kids and families to be given the unbiased information on their harms, and make consensual decisions on what they want to feed themselves, and what they want to feed their families.

[APPLAUSE]

Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition has stood up and tried to explain to you why banning the advertisement of unhealthy products, we will see a decrease in widespread weight-related health issues produced by the consumption of these products. We would like to firstly point out that by banning the advertisement of unhealthy products, the opposition is assuming that the problem of our health is directly linked to these advertisements. It is not. Consumption of unhealthy products exists because of a huge consumerist culture that is causing us to consume these unhealthy products. It will also not stop when we ban these ads.

We need to rely on an organic change to steadily and firmly make this change possible. Furthermore, by banning these ads, we deprive sporting companies, TV channels, and the government of a huge economic industry that is really important to our culture. Today, I'll be talking firstly about [? why ?] obesity, and other health-related issues that the opposition is to expect today is not necessarily linked to advertisement. Secondly, I'll be talking about why banning advertising won't solve these problems. And then thirdly, why other alternatives, including organic change is better for solving this issue.

My second speaker will be talking about how advertisements fund the media they are broadcast from. The opposition has built the case around how when we see advertisements, we're going to think I want to go and buy this thing. We disagree. We believe that the problem of unhealthy eating stems from a consumerist culture, and is unrelated to advertisements shown on the TV, radio, and other forms of media. These products, when taken into moderation, cause no harm, and benefit [INAUDIBLE] to the consumer. We believe that removing unhealthy advertisement will not positively affect the issue.

They used the example of when we see advertisements on TV about McDonald's and Happy Meals, and how we're coerced into thinking that unhealthy food is related to happiness. However, we don't think that the problem of the consumerism of these products is directly linked to this coercion that they've talked about. Firstly, the problem of when you actually sit down to eat these products is it's not because we see it on advertisements.

It's because we're with our families, and we're going to eat them because of the consumerist culture that we live in. If we take away these ads, then people will still be coming into these restaurants-- well, restaurants, like fast food places-- they'll still be telling their friends about the amazing experience they had eating Happy Meals. They'll still be relating happiness to food. And these companies will still make their shops [? still ?] huge, bright, and flashing to still mean that people still associate these companies with happiness.

Secondly, unhealthy food companies will just get around not being able to advertise companies by making the shops bigger and brighter. They're multi-million industries, and they're not going to just shut down because of food companies. So that means that we're not actually going to see a change in the level of consumption of these products.

The opposition talks about how McDonald's uses false advertising, bright colors, and it's tasty, it's attractive, with sound effects. However, how is this different to other forms of advertisement? We believe that whilst this may create an unrealistic view of food and healthiness, this does not differ from other ads like toys and other consumerism things that are going to harm you, because you're going to be spending your money, and not getting really, any benefit from it.

And the general public of Australia understands that they are aimed to be appealing. We reject the idea that this then affects the person to go to shops such as McDonald's. We believe that the opposition has greatly over-exaggerated the affects of these ads.

Allow me to to advance my first argument, which is about why unhealthiness does not necessarily stem from advertisement. Today, the opposition has tried to relate unhealthy to Australia to the advertisement, then, of unhealthy products. We believe that they have made a complete jump, and we should not believe that advertisement in any way fosters these problems.

Issues such as obesity are often partially genetic, and are worsened by the consumerist culture that we live in, but not exclusively to the advertisements that they see. The mass consumption of fast food companies derives from a huge consumerist culture, where the consumption of unhealthy products has become cheap, convenient, and common. However, the reason for its commonness does not stem from advertisement. It stems from word of mouth.

We have families in Australia who are sitting down to dinner in front of a TV with a KFC box of chicken. We have social events in workplaces that are standing around a table filled with food. It's this association that people make with consumption of happiness, and it's not because of advertisement, but it's because of this ingrained part of consumption, and this association to happiness that's ingrained in our culture that makes fast food companies so dangerous. It's not the advertisement that people see.

This leads to me to this, my second issue, which about why banning advertisements won't solve the problem of health issues. Because of the problems that the opposition have addressed come from consumption without moderation, and this comes from the culture and lifestyles of most Australians. These health issues will not be solved. The fact is that removing the presence of unhealthy products from the day to day forms of the media will not remove the knowledge of these products, like the fact that these products exist in people's lifestyles.

Currently, the McDonald's M sign is the most identifiable sign for two-year-olds, which the opposition has talked about. This is a lifestyle. The people who feel the negative side effects of these unhealthy products, are those who are consuming ridiculous amounts of these products incredibly often. Remember, advertisement is often countered by parents who, when their children run up to them, claiming to just want something that they've seen on TV, is just say no. Parents aren't going to endorse their children's mass consumption of these products, because parents aren't that stupid as the opposition is making them out to be.

And this leads me on to my third argument, which is about why we need better alternatives to the opposition's model to combat health problems. So as I've already explained, banning advertisements of unhealthy products will not solve health problems in our society. The only way that we can effectively reduce the problem is by cutting off its roots.

This means that we need to rely on organic change to stop our mass consumeristic culture of just sitting down to food. We can't solve a cultural issue by taking away advertisements. And that's why we shouldn't ban advertisements.

[APPLAUSE]

OK, so today we've found these two main issues that the opposition have presented us with. And this is firstly is our consumption of products directly related to advertisements, and will we see change after banning these advertisements? So whether or not our consumption of products is directly related. So we believe that without this continued advertisement, it's not as much as an option, because it's not in the forefront of our minds.

We see advertisements over and over again. They're everywhere we look. And we believe that as soon as we take out this potential of the company to constantly be showing us their products, we are taking out this mentality where we are constantly seeing this, and so they're the first option we think about.

We believe this therefore makes our consumers less likely to have detrimental health issues, as they are making a consensual choice that is informed and they are in no way manipulated by advertisers. And the opposition told us that we have this ingrained mentality to consume. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that eating junk food is not a basic instinct we've had since cavemen. We never thought, oh, let's go out to Macca's. Yes, to eat is an instinct, but we believe it's always about eating healthier, it's about staying alive, and it's about surviving.

And we believe that the only reason why we currently have this feeling that we want to eat unhealthy foods is because of the constant advertisement of it. And this is the kind of clever type of advertisements that even once when you're within a store, companies are always trying to get you to buy as much as possible, and get the most money out of you. Because the more we eat, the more profit we get.

So walking in the store with any intention of buying one small chocolate bar, you then see that pop of color, and you go, oh OK, let's buy another one. And once you're there, they're very clever into making you buy more. So you go over and get a larger bar as it's half the price cheaper when you also buy a small bar. And then you realized that three larger bars is a better deal, and then a family-size block is an even better deal. And all fast food chains use these manipulative tactics to make you more likely to buy their products, because they want profit.

Now secondly, on to this idea of whether or not we would see change. So the opposition told us because we're not actually removing junk food stores, [? Aussies ?] are still just as likely to go and buy from them. So we believe that these companies rely on promotion, and without the ability to promote, less and less people are going to be thinking about these companies, which means the movement of consumers will away from this. And we believe that this idea that they're so great will be no longer an issue.

So on to this idea of this consumerist culture. We believe the opposition has labeled our culture as consumerist, and we believe that this is stemmed from the constant advertisement. So once this is taken away, there's no longer a culture where we are constantly thinking about consuming negative things, because we are more open to education, awareness, and we're unmanipulated.

So now to my substantive matter. My first point is the principle of these companies. So the basic principle for these companies are for profit. This means that they make unsustainable choices, don't have the best trade policies, and they have advantageous initiatives all for more profit. So this means that they have improper use of land, inhumane killing of animals, unsustainable crops. And we believe that how they're making their products is continuing in an unsustainable movement, and this is not something we stand by.

So their trade policies-- so for example, Cadbury has made their milk chocolate as a good trade policy, because they've been constantly accused of non-fair trade. And we believe that this hasn't changed in their less popular products, because of less media attention. So this is demonstrated that none of the other companies are willing to use fair trade, and so we can see that consumers are no more likely to buy these things because of advertising, and they're not aware of the affects.

So we believe these type of companies who are willing to use child labor, take advantage of impoverished communities, and not necessarily have safe work. And this means they have a lack of ethics, and this isn't something we stand by. So the initiatives of these companies are pressured by the public, because these companies have power and they're abusing it. They're taking advantage in the name of charity.

So for example, we have this initiative where Coke provides vending machines of half price in African schools, because these schools cannot afford to supply water, and it's a cheaper alternative to have these vending machines. Coca-Cola then take the money from these vending machines, and makes a profit, as well as making this supposed charity. We believe that these companies, if wanted, are big enough to create a difference, and this supposed idea of charity is really just taking advantage of the people who can't afford the fundamental right to water. And we believe these companies are manipulating vulnerable people under the pretense of world health, the self-beneficiary. And we believe they're making money off something that really shouldn't be made money off.

And this is not something we want to promote in our society. This is not an idea we support. And we believe by banning advertising, we are taking away the benefit of these unsustainable ideas, and Australian society should stand by fair trade, sustainable initiatives, and environmental awareness.

But it's not something we're currently having, as we are standing by these companies to use us for self gain. So we need to create awareness of these unfair ways, so that our public can understand what's truly happening. And we believe that it's more important in Australian society than advertising unhealthy products to have awareness of what's happening.

So secondly, on to this idea of mindset. So these large corporations have unhealthy products because they're a business, and they don't care what's in their products. They're cheaply sourced. And they're not appropriate for a balanced diet, because they're cutting corners. And this leads to an unsustainable diet, and this leads society into poor health through constant advertising.

And we can see that this mentality is prevalent in the idea of a Happy Meal. So they're children's favorite characters, and they associate this with happiness. And this really shows us the fundamental value of these companies, which is self-beneficiary ideas. Because they're using entrancements to get people to buy their product. And this is creating a social mindset where junk food is OK, where junk food is OK on [? repeat. ?]

[APPLAUSE]

Advertising pays for your free sports Sundays. It allows you to watch an episode of Beauty and the Geek. Most of this advertising, the opposition wants to ban. This leaves you without anything to do, as underfunded shows cease to run. Do we really wish to deny people their entertainment?

We, the negative team, do not believe that the banning of unhealthy advertisements will fix the problem the opposition has put forward, but instead revoke the privileges of the Australian society. But before I continue on my team's case, I would like to point out some major flaws in the opposition's argument. The opposition said the Australians have been drilled that happiness and contentment are linked with fast food advertisements, and we believe that yes, they are drilled, that they are drilled about the food, and how food is nice, but by different mediums.

We believe that it is ingrained in the social culture of our society that these fast food chains are cheap and easy to buy. We do not believe that banning advertisements will help this problem, as it has already been drilled into these people by the consumer culture that my first speaker has discussed. And banning advertisements will only put the issue under cover.

The opposition say that consumption is related to advertising, and consumer culture is not in the front of your mind while you're buying these foods. So advertising is more worrying, because it stays there. We believe that as the opposition has told us, our ingrained mentality pushes us to consume at cheap prices. People are able to separate advertisement from reality, whereas this sub-conscious urge to consume is something that our society deals with. And this is the main reason that any person chooses to enter fast food chains.

The opposition has also stated that they do not support the morals of these companies. And we do not want to endorse bad morals, because of the child labor that these companies induce. However, we don't believe that the social justice behind these companies is relevant to this debate, which is focused on unhealthy products and health, as the opposition has wanted it to be. The opposition has also talked about animal cruelty. However, we believe that we would enforce restrictions and harsher taxes. But we don't want to completely ban the ads, as I will be talking about later.

Now on to my points. I will be continuing on the topic of alternative solutions to the opposition's model to combat health problems. So advertisements for unhealthy products will not solve the health problems in our society, because this problem is linked to cultural issues, and it is not because of advertisements. The only way that we can effectively reduce the problem is by cutting it off at its roots.

The reason why we have the problem of obesity and cardiovascular diseases related to weight is because of Australia's huge commercial culture. We can't solve cultural and social issues by taking away advertisements. Consumption is ingrained in our culture. It's part of our families. It's sitting down to a family dinner in front of a TV, eating fast food.

This is similar to the way that we continue to buy from clothes companies such as Nike, [INAUDIBLE], and Target, which endorse child labor. We can't solve our social and cultural issues but taking away advertisement. Because as I've already explained, there is a demand for unhealthy products. People will still consent to them, and still buy them.

But already in our society, we're seeing a change in viewpoint. We're seeing a health and bodies-obsessed new culture. We're seeing jogger clubs popping up. We're seeing kale smoothies being consumed. These are things that have never been seen on such a scale as Australia's society is putting it on.

But we're seeing a universal influx in the interest in people's health. And this is organic change. Education programs, fitness clubs, school competitions, this is what we need to rely on for a safe and solid reliable change in our society. It is going to happen from a complete turning of unhealthy food products.

Now on to my second point, how advertisements are economically important. The money companies who are advertising have to pay the media outlets they are advertising on are very large amounts to be able to stay on that show. The money either goes to TV shows or radio companies, and it is one of the major sponsoring option [INAUDIBLE] that these media outlets get to fund their shows.

The companies like McDonald's, Pepsi, and Coke, who advertise their food on sports television and radio keep the game on TV, and keep it on broadcasting radio shows. The amount of money that would be lost from advertising being banned, as the opposition want to do, would severely harm the broadcasting of these sports events on prime time TV. And we believe that with it not on prime time TV and prime time radio shows, the interest in these sporting events will decrease, and this would most likely lead to a decrease of interest in sport all around, leading a more unhealthy society, which is exactly what the opposition do not want.

Also the products themselves are heavily taxed, which actually helps the government, because this mostly is going towards the Australian public. Although this is not so much about advertising. The consumption of these products is what we are talking about, and we do not think that it is negative when consumed in moderation. Because of all these reasons we have provided, we are proud to negate.

[APPLAUSE]

So we believe in this case, the debate has come down to several main issues that we'd like to discuss. And the first thing is whether identifying where the problem with junk advertising lies, and the second is in the question of how we should stop this, and will our model have some sort of adverse effect on our society that we need to be concerned about? So the first look at the way that our culture works, and what the problem with [? it is. ?] The opposition has come out and talked about this consumerist culture that we have, that we buy because we want to buy, and we need to buy, and that we have an ideal in our society, and that stopping advertising isn't going to stop this.

Well, simply, opposition, if we do have this urge to buy whatever we buy, all the junk food companies need to do is direct that urge in the direction of their own products. And it's essentially what advertising does. It takes this need to consume whatever we get given, and it says what you really need to consume now is a Big Mac. And what you really need to consume now is our product, which was specified to you, and we've shown to you through advertising. And then we then coerced and convinced you, using our clever tactics in advertisement to go and consume.

So in this case, the opposition has neglected [? to sort of ?] have a look at why we buy what we buy. And that's simply not just because of this urge we have to consume whatever, , that possibly it's because of deeper and greater reasons than this. And here's where we'd like to come and talk about the fact that junk food advertising has become embedded in our culture, and that this is essentially why we are aware of junk food, and why we choose to buy it. And simply that if you don't know, and you have no previous experience or awareness of a company, you're not going to be urged to want this product. But with this new awareness, and this idea, this association that this product could be a source of happiness, you're more likely to direct your interests in this direction, which is essentially how advertising works to manipulate your need to consume.

Here we sort of had a look. The opposition has come with an second idea, it is consumerist culture, that it is Australian culture to sit around and eat of bucket of chicken in front of the TV, and that it's also sort of Australian culture. They've sort of suggesting to do yoga on the side, and that we have these conflicting cultures in which we both are addicted to junk food, and we need it, but that we also are trying to change for some reason. They haven't specified why we would be trying to change. And we have such a strong fundamental draw to junk food.

So we begin to have a look at the way that McDonald's and these type of things manipulate this belief that we have an Australian culture. Your typical McDonald's ad shows a family around a barbecue having [? a thing, ?] and this is Australian culture. They all show young guys down on the beach, having a surf, and then going out to dinner later, and going to McDonald's. And this is sort of the type of plays they put on Australian culture in order to further embed this idea that we need it in order to be part of an Australian culture. So therefore, what we can see overall is that the fact that people consume is not simply because we need to consume, because this is like this fundamental draw to consumption, but because we are directing this need towards advertising.

And then secondly, like there's this Australian culture is being associated with junk food. So this brings me to this second idea, of how we can stop this consumption of junk food. The opposition has come up and told us about an organic change, in which status quo-- we're becoming more interested in things like yoga, and for some reason, we're going to have more draw towards a fitness thing.

And they haven't really here suggested any reason why this could be happening. But we're going to take it with a grain of salt, and say yeah, that people maybe are becoming more educated. And here we have to look at two sort of things.

The first is the nature of the advertising, and how McDonald's and all these, like Subway, adapt to Australian culture. So as you know, Subway's whole branding thing is that it's healthy junk food. And as you know, McDonald's has it's new ad campaign where it comes out and tells us how sophisticated McDonald's burgers are, how healthy they are with their very un-McDonald's ad campaign.

In this case, these businesses are clever to target what the moving interests of Australians are, and target this specific need in order to advertise more correctly towards what the public is interested in consuming. They'll show things like those who are engaging in running and activity going for burgers afterwards. See, what they've done here, is they've immediately associated your need for health, your need for yoga, this whole need that we have with your need for McDonald's burgers, and further ingrained it, and convinced you to buy it, and bring McDonald's junk food into your lifestyle.

Which brings me to this second idea of why there is no organic movement away of junk food. Junk food [? thinks their ?] billion dollar businesses that essentially want you to buy. There's no way that these businesses are ever going to back off by themselves, and let you have your healthy lifestyle. They essentially survive on the fact that Australians stay fat. So basically, as soon as we start getting healthy, the junk food advertisement needs to continue to make you eat more.

So therefore, we don't believe these companies are ever going to back off until we force them with the endgame. Essentially, you stop advertising and promoting in our countries, or we'll no longer allow it to operate within our countries. And we believe that as Australia is a revenue for these companies, they're going to back off their advertising, or essentially leave, which is further helping our case. So therefore, what we see here is this organic change the opposition suggests isn't necessarily even happening in society, and that these companies have a way of reacting to organic change that means that they continue to pester and bring junk food into our lives.

Which brings me to in the final sort of idea they brought up about how we stop it. But [INAUDIBLE] not a question whether our model has some adverse practical effects. They've talked about the fact that we're going to lose things like our entertainment industry. We're going to lose tax, and we're going to lose sports.

Simply put, with entertainment, it's not run simply on junk food ads. There's other products here that supply money to your entertainment and to your TV. And that we believe other things will take this place. But even if we do lose entertainment here, and we lose our industry, we believe that we're OK with losing the fact that you can't sit down and watch TV with your KFC every night for the fact that you're going to be a healthier person, who's able to live longer, that with a better and higher quality of life.

So in this case, we're happy to say that it's better off without your television than with these adverse effects of over-consumption of junk food that are being caused by advertising. And then there's some more practical points. They've talked about tax. And they've talked about the fact that sporting industries sort of rely on junk food.

And here we would like to say that tax from government comes from basically everything. They rip off everything they can get their hands on to get money off. And essentially, this does not just simply rely on junk food industries. Here, we don't believe that the government's going to have that much a detriment.

And secondly, with sports-- sports are often not just funded by junk food industries. They're mostly funded by things like anything from cars to [? great ?] companies and businesses. And we don't believe that advertised sporting issues is going to collapse simply because one form of revenue has been removed.

And so we believe in this case, that even if all these revenues were removed, if we're protecting the lives of our people, we're willing to negate these small practical issues in order to protect our society as a greater whole. So therefore, what we can see over this debate is that firstly, the problem we're facing-- OK. And this is why are proud to propose.

[APPLAUSE]

Ladies and gentlemen, throughout this debate, the opposition has presented us with this idea that by banning advertisements of unhealthy products, we're going to reduce the consumption of these products, and therefore increase the health of Australians. However, we believe that the over-consumption of these products is what is actually leading to health issues, and that this problem comes from the culture in Australia. The opposition conceded that culture is part of the problem with this. However, they thought they could change this by taking away advertising which tells us that it's OK to have this junk food.

However, we believe that organic change is coming. In fact, it's actually here already. Our society is leaning towards the healthier options. This is why you can now get an option of salad at McDonald's. This is why health is being pushed all over the world. This means that if we do continue to ban these advertisements unnecessarily, the media platforms that do play these advertisements are going to be feeling these unnecessary side effects. Today, we, the negative team, saw these two main clashes in the debate.

Firstly, the idea of culture versus advertisements. And secondly, the idea of these companies versus their morals or their economic gain. Under the first clash, the idea of cultural advertisement, we saw this issue of firstly, which one is the source of the problem, and whether the opposition model is actually going to fix this problem.

Under which one is the source of the problem, the opposition thought that unhealthy food products such as fast food are ruining the lives of Australians, because they lead to problems like obesity and lack of fitness. They thought that advertisements make food out to be better or healthier than they actually are. So then people go there, but instead of them feeling these negative effects from this fast food.

However, we believe that the problem stems from the culture and views of Australians, and also from the way that this food is constructed. When people are seeing these ads, and when we see this level of obsession over an unhealthy product, we're not going to be seeing a drop in consumption just because advertisements are taken off TV. The reason that over-consumption happens is because food is constructed to set off receptors in your brain that makes you like it and want to eat more or feel happy.

The demand of these products is still going to be there once advertisements are off TV. The knowledge of these products is not going to change. And this means that the culture is still pushing these problems, such as over-consumption.

The opposition said that consumption related to advertising is more important, because it's always in your subconscious because it's on TV, and that consumer culture is not in your mind, so it doesn't have as much of an impact. However, we believe that the opposition has taught us our ingrained mentality pushes us to consume at cheap prices. People are able to separate advertisements from reality, whereas the subconscious urge to consume something is something our society deals with. This is the main reason that any person chooses to enter fast food chains.

Under the second question of culture versus advertisements, [? or whether ?] the opposition's model is actually going to fix the problem of unhealthy eating. The opposition claimed throughout the debate that these advertisements con and coerce people into going to fast food places, because all these advertisements, they're making things like burgers and unhealthy things look delicious. They spray them with water so they're shining, and so everyone wants to go and have a happy time, and eat seven Big Macs. However, [INAUDIBLE] that without these advertisements telling people how delicious everything is, people aren't going to be thinking about and wanting to go to these fast food places, which means it these problems, such as over-consumption of unhealthy products will not occur. However, we believe is that does not stand for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, as we've proved before, these problems stem from the consumerist culture the Australian society enjoys. Banning these ads is not going to stop people from wanting to go out and enjoy a meal. Secondly, it is people's choice to order excessive amounts of unhealthy food. The health problems arise when people try the products, which are deliberately manufactured to get you to want more, and then continue to eat and eat and eat. We do not see these health problems in Australia simply because a company is promoting their products, which is what every single company in Australia does. That is what the purpose of advertising is.

The opposition said that by changing the mindset of people, the situation will be improved, because we're not going to be thinking of junk food as OK. We said that removing advertising would be ineffective of changing the mindset of people, because it's so deeply ingrained that a fun thing to do on a Saturday night is sit down, watch the footy, and have some food.

However, we believe that because of this organic change, we're going to be solving this in a much more effective way. Organic change can be constantly seen within our society. One such example is the salad menu that is now available at McDonald's. This option is available because of the demand for healthy foods.

This option is available because fast food chains are evolving to offer these healthier options, so they can keep getting money in, so they can keep producing products. Because of course, this is what companies are for. Whilst this may take time, gradually, people are moving towards choosing the healthier options, choosing to do some more sport, or choosing to instead of just simply sitting down and eating the seven Big Macs [? that we said, ?] maybe think about it, and only have four.

The opposition said that it's going to take too long, and that theirs is a quicker solution that's better. However, we believe that their model will be ineffective in solving this problem, and whilst our options will take time, it will save the lives of people, rather than suddenly removing the visual component. But still, when they walk down the street, they're still seeing McDonald's signs everywhere they go.

They also said that we had conflicting interest with our so-called organic change thing, because we were saying that the Australian culture says that we don't mind being unhealthy, but that we still want to [INAUDIBLE] trying to be healthy. But we believe that organic change is changing slowly from healthy to unhealthy, and that if we continue to let this occur, we will see change, and it will be worth it.

Under the second [INAUDIBLE] [? clash, ?] [INAUDIBLE] these companies [INAUDIBLE] their morals, and if they have incorrect morals, it's right to take their advertisements away. The opposition said that basically, these companies are just wanting money, that these so-called programs like, oh, we're going to be donating some of this to charity is to make you buy more food. They said that this is just making fun of these people who are without water, because big multi-billion companies in Australia are earning millions and millions of dollars year, and go, oh yeah, we're giving some to charity, so it's all great.

However, we believe that while this may be happening, this is not a reason to take advertisements off TV. Advertisements are not making fun of people without water. Advertisements are a way for a company to promote their products. And if the so-called advertisements are taken down, people, under the opposition's model come to pass, we are going to be receiving all these ridiculous and unfair [? results. ?] Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

I'm going to have my minutes on the stage. Thanks very much. Awesome job, guys. first of all, is what we wanted to say to these two teams. And I'd love to hear another round of applause for [INAUDIBLE].

[APPLAUSE]

This debate's made me very hungry, so I'll keep it short.

[LAUGHTER]

Planned that, yes. First thing that we thought to say in this debate was it was a fantastic debate, and a very close one. But nonetheless, a unanimous decision from the panel. And that was based on two questions.

The first one was the imperative established by the affirmative, and that was judging to what extent this policy reduces obesity levels. Right from the beginning, what we were really impressed by by the affirmative was the amount of description they had in telling us what these ads were like, the style, the colors, millions of dollars that were pumped into it, the flashy lights, the extra deals, and the toys, the Happy Meals. And basically, what they told us through the sheer mass of material at first affirmative was fast food companies were indoctrinating us into always craving their food, into always thinking about McDonald's burgers over and above other sorts of things.

The negative had three lines of attack, and I'll look through each of those individually. The first was these shops still exist. They're likely to dress those shops up further. You know, everyone knows what McDonald's is. That's not going to disappear from people's minds.

However, we didn't think that that necessarily defeated the arguments by the affirmative of creating a first response to that, or putting it at the top of your priority list, as McDonald's being the first thing you think about, considering it's always on the TV. We also think that the stakeholder of children was one that was really well analyzed, that was a group of people that perhaps didn't have knowledge of all the different choices out there. And for them, that advertising was a first port of contact, and something that did create demand where otherwise it didn't exist.

The second and larger attack, though, was about a consumerist culture, one that fed our desires to consume, and fed our desires specifically to consume food. First, the initial problem that we had with this was if that argument was true, it didn't necessarily prove that that consumer culture directed us to unhealthy fast food so much as just convenient fast food. And that was something that was a little part of the attack that we didn't think was fully convincing for the negative.

But we think the negative had-- the affirmative, sorry-- had two good responses. The first was to say that culture is reinforced by this advertising. So there may be a culture of consumption, but the firms that occupy that cultural space are very much decided by which are able to dominate the air space. They're always there, they're always colorful, they're always the sheer scale of advertising was something that was important.

But also, we liked the line at third affirmative in particular about how this advertising directed the culture, and where that culture ended up making us eat. And also, talking about the way that firms often use nationalist tropes and cultural tropes associated with Australia to change that culture in favor of them. So we thought that even if there was a need to purchase things, the direction of where that was funneled was definitely something that advertising could put its hand up to, and say I'm responsible.

The third response was to say actually, what's happening now is a slow counter movement of more healthy products. So they gave the example of the yogurt industry booming, things like kale, which I still have no idea why people find appealing. But we thought that was a really good line of argumentation, to point to those changes that were naturally occurring all around us.

The first thing that we think the affirmative did a good job in countering this line of argumentation was just setting up the industry of fast food as a billion, billion dollar industry, one that naturally sat as a more powerful force in society. But the better responses, we thought, were later in the debate, talking about how companies can use those changes about health, use those insecurities about people needing to eat healthy, and actually sort of trick consumers into coming to their restaurant. So Subway was a good example, McDonald's was a good example.

And even though I think third neg had a great piece of analysis about how McDonald's was introducing things like salads, we also thought the material from second aff meant that even if the attraction of salad or more healthy options put people in the door, once they were in the restaurant, the tactics used within each shop were likely to be directing people to consume more, and more unhealthy products once they had the foot in the door.

That's why we think the organic change thing wasn't able to defeat the material from the affirmative team, which ultimately showed that to a large extent, this was the policy that was going to change people's consumption patterns, and the slow organic change that we were having, while probably a positive thing, was actually being co-opted by these companies, and not leading to the kind of positive health benefits that the negative or both teams wanted. So we think the affirmative won that issue.

The second question then was is this a fair policy to justify this sort of a benefit? The first thing the affirmative told us was that the problem is this is deceptive advertising, people can't consent to it. We thought they had some great description. We also thought they were very good in describing the way that companies target children, which was a stakeholder that we think the negative didn't engage enough with.

What I did like, though, was the challenge posed by the negative team, which was to say why is it only fast food companies? All companies advertise their products. And we thought that was a question that perhaps was left hanging by the end of the debate, and the affirmative didn't answer it as well as they could have.

However, the negative didn't really tell us why it mattered that we were just targeting fast food companies. What was the value of being consistent, or really fair in the way we applied advertising policies? So by the end, we were left with just a comparison of the harms and benefits of this policy. And the affirmative had shown us the enormous benefits of putting through an advertising ban.

In response, what we got from the negative was about corporate sponsorship, which we thought was well explained, but dealt with by the third affirmative in response by talking about how there are other companies that are willing to step up there, and the marginal gap in funding isn't likely to be huge, considering these are events that everyone wants to sponsor.

So by the end, we thought because the affirmative had proven such a huge benefit in this debate, they were able to show that that was a policy that was worth putting in place, even if it may be marginally inconsistent. And that's the decision that the panel have arrived.

[APPLAUSE]

Our speaker will now congratulate the winning team.

Congratulations on the win, you're a really good team, and we hope to debate you in the future.

[APPLAUSE]

A speaker from the winning team will now respond.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

[LAUGHTER]

Good job, guys. You were really good competition, and we also hope to debate you again.

[APPLAUSE]

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

[APPLAUSE]