Last year, I was preparing for a group presentation at school and found out an interesting report about the relationship between TV advertisements on junk food and childhood obesity published by the Institute Of Medicine (IOM). The research team discovered that television advertising strongly influences what children under 12 eat. J. McGinnis, a senior scholar at IOM, said “The foods advertised are predominantly high in calories and low in nutrition — the sort of diet that puts children’s long-term health at risk”. I could not forget this alarming truth and from then, my whole diet changed; I stopped eating junk food.
While I was watching "The Story of Stuff", I had in my mind that this video will strongly influence minds of most of children who watch it, as the report by IOM affected my mine. Such an astonishing, yet fearful claim that we are buying toxic products and that every product comes along with toxins must have huge impact upon the fragile minds of children. It would not be a really big problem, however, if all the statistics and descriptions in this video were true; yet, they are not. Such exaggerations as pillows being soaked into toxic chemicals are very likely to give false recognition to people, especially children.
Thus, 'The Story of Stuff' should not be used as an educational material. It contains exaggerated and forged pieces of information that is certainly not educational, for a proper education must derive its contents from facts. In addition, the video is too much obsessed with condemning the current production and consumption cycle that it does not show the whole part of the nation's industry. For instance, there are numerous eco-friendly corporations in United States and the U.S. government is trying to regulate the pollution from corporations by enacting legislations and implementing CER (Certified Emissino Reduction) policy.
I donot deny that there are problems in the production and consumption cycle. However, if the problem is to be taught to children, it must be more truth-based and properly stated. Visual materials have huge influence on children's thoughts. An educational video would be more rational that to be radical.
The debate motions that I suggest are:
1. THBT government can restrict freedom of speech when the criticism against government is not truthful
2. THBT government should mandate companies to produce nutritious food when it comes to children-targeted products.
3. THBT United States' helping development of under-developed countries should be stopped
Agreed. Stuff digs itself into it's own hole in many cases, and probably should have had a narrower scope. If they'd changed even a few minor things, the legitimacy would be increased ten fold.
답글삭제One thing I could argue against is your use "numerous" when describing companies that follow green policies and don't use toxins. Numerous is a small proportion compared to those that do pollute, and let's face it - avoiding toxins and pollutants is impossible in a world obsessed with plastic. I don't expect my computer to be made of green materials, and it wouldn't exist if we did expect this.
All in all, a good repsonse. I like debate motion number two, and the discussion you made in the beginning.