Reputation and concession

My Refutation and Concession

1. What is my thesis?

Eating a lot of sugary foods is worse for children than for adults.

2. What is the opposite position?

Eating sugary foods is worse for adults than for children.

3. What arguments can I anticipate?

a) the adults are old, and relatively weaker than children thus if they eat a lot of sugary foods, it will seriously influence on their body. Therefore, eating sugary foods is more harmful for adults than children because they are weaker and older.

b) unlike children who don’t earn money, adults can earn money, and they can freely buy what they want to eat. Thus, if they eat a lot of sugary foods, they can be easily addicted to it.

4. How will I counter those arguments?

a) the idea that adults will be influenced more by side effects of eating sugar is incorrect. Rather, the fact that children are younger than adults makes the preference for sugar more dangerous. Because they are younger, they can form a bad habit in an early age, and negatively influence on their health more seriously.

b) I acknowledge that adults earn money and can get what they want. However, I disagree that this idea supports that eating sugary foods is worse for adults than for children. That’s because it is children’s parent that buys their children sweet snacks. Therefore, I think it is not logical that adults get worse influence from sugar because they can earn money and buy sweet foods. 

My Refutation and Concession

The opponents of my thesis would insist that eating sugary foods is worse for adults than for children. They would say that the adults are relatively older and weaker than children and thus the side effect of sugar intake will negatively influence on adults more. Also, they would say that unlike children who do not earn money, adults can earn money and buy sweet foods whenever they want. They would insist that the possibility to get addicted to sugar is higher in adults because of their ability to buy sweet foods. However, I disagree with opponents’ arguments strongly. The opponents’ arguments have fatal faults. First, they said it is more dangerous for adults to eat a lot of sugary foods because they are older and weaker. They did not see the situation in the long term. In the long term, the fact that children are younger than adults makes the preference for sugar more dangerous. Children can form a bad habit in an early age, and be negatively influenced on their health more seriously since earlier than adults. Second, they said that adults are exposed to sugar intake more because they afford to buy sugary foods. However, they didn’t recognize that adults are parents. It is children’s parents that buy their children sweet snacks. Therefore, I think it is not logical that adults get worse influence from sugar because they earn money and are affordable to buy sweet foods.