Is meritocracy a myth?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is meritocracy a myth?". Your opponent's style: Ricky Gervais

this house would ban junk foods

You've got it backwards. Banning junk food is nanny-state nonsense that treats adults like children. People have the right to make bad choices, that's freedom. The moment you ban something, you create black markets, underground industries, and criminals getting rich. Look at alcohol prohibition, look at the war on drugs, absolute disasters. Plus, who decides what's junk? Today it's soda, tomorrow it's red meat, next week it's coffee. Food companies adapt, innovation dies, and poor people lose their cheapest calories. You want healthier people? Education and exercise, not government jackboots telling you what you can eat. Personal responsibility, not prohibition.

hi

Hold up, "hi"? You're opening with a greeting on a debate about banning junk food? Fine, I'll take that as you disagreeing with me. Look, banning junk food actually works. Countries with strict food regulations have lower obesity rates. Singapore taxed sugary drinks and consumption dropped fast. You say freedom, I say freedom to slowly poison yourself isn't real freedom, it's just corporate manipulation. Your kids don't choose to be addicted to processed garbage, marketing does. And calling it nanny-state? Healthcare costs from obesity crush economies more than any ban ever would. So what's your actual position here, or are we just saying hello?