gd

[Iswarya D]

TV Commercials should be banned.
Hemant Sharma 12-30-2011 02:55 AM

TV commercials is coming under attack from parents organizations, politicians and pressure groups in many countries as it not only regulates false and misleading ads but also lures people into impulsive spending. But they also provide us with the latest information on the latest products, keeping us updated. Advertisements are all glitter and little truth.

For-
- There should be regulations against false or misleading advertisements, as most of the TV commercials are advert towards making profit.
- TV can exist without advertising, as it only creates distractions and disturbances.
- Commercials coming nowadays depict vulgarity knowing no bounds.
- Teenagers become easy victims of the commercials, as they fail to understand that advertisers are only trying to lure them into buying their products.
- Advertisements are directed towards the younger generation, luring them into making premature decisions and buying things that are not essential.
- There is nothing moral in encouraging customers to be non-rational and impulsive in spending.

Against-
- Advertisements offer a wide range of variety for the customers, which give the customers a lot of choices to choose from.
- It boosts economy by generating revenue; this money is generally of the people working behind the scenes.
- It would be a violation of freedom of speech and press.
- Banning ads would create unawareness among the people about the new products that are up for grabs, that might be useful to many.
- Banning TV ads would leave a sore taste as it would violate the right of freedom of expression.
- Many channels will get closed not being able to meet their cost of production.
- Banning the advertisements may lead to channels not being able to air impartial content in national interest as they will have to depend on some particular revenue sources.

In the interest of the free speech, TV commercials should not be banned but they should be restricted in terms of the contents they show that might influence the teenagers in a wrong way. To have Freedom of Speech is a good thing but it should have its limits.

[Iswarya D]

India needs a strong dictator

Against

• India being a strong democratic country doesn’t really need a dictator. It may just lead to disruption.
• India is a big country. People live in harmony and are known for their unity. A dictator may not be able to maintain this.
• Few people may again misunderstand dictatorship and may think it defies the purpose of freedom.
• Dictatorship may bring very short term changes. A country needs a strong government.
• Dictatorship may introduce communal differences depending on the community of the dictator.
• Human rights can be certainly bypassed.
• It may lead to disorganization and malfunctioning of the law and order system of the country.

For

• A dictator can easily help us get rid of the dirt in politics.
• A very small community of people actually understands the meaning of democracy and don’t make misuse of it.
• For over decades, India is trying to get rid of poverty, may be, a dictator can help in this aspect.
• A dictator can help the citizens realize the meaning of democracy and freedom.

Whether a country has a dictator or not, freedom of speech and rights is what matters to any citizen. It is a myth that smaller countries usually need dictatorship. We cannot forget the smaller country has the same human species with the same human rights as in other countries.