Chapter 10, Question #2

Reading both Wootan’s and Liodice’s arguments regarding government regulation of children’s food advertising, I have to say that Liodice’s argument was stronger. Wootan argument consisted of tons of facts and guidelines that made his argument really heavy and not very passionate. Where as Liodice’s argument was moving because he chose to use something everyone has in common; freedom of speech. People like to have the right to express themselves the way they want to without any restrictions. This is why I think Liodice’s stance on the regulation of children’s food advertisement is stronger. He also referenced the opposing argument and stated why it was faulty, strengthening his perspective even more. He brought in that the advertisements cannot be the only ones that are blamed because the parents do play a very important role in what their children are exposed to. I do think that the limitation of unhealthy foods being advertised would help in lowering children obesity. But Liodice’s argument was stronger than Wootan’s.