Debate format and timing (starting next week): 1 minute – Moderator’s introduction (topic, rules, and introduction of both teams) 3 minutes – Opening statement by Team A (e.g., 1.a) 3 minutes – Opening statement by Team B (e.g., 1.b) 3 minutes – Rebuttal by Team A 3 minutes – Rebuttal by Team B 4 minutes – Audience questions and critiques 2 minutes – Free speech and closing statements from both teams 1 minute – Moderator’s closing remarks Important points: The moderator will be selected by Dr Rachel from the audience, so everyone should be prepared. The order of the debates will be decided by drawing a chit next Thursday, after which the first group will begin. Please make sure you research your assigned topic thoroughly. It is also important to read up on the other debate topics, as everyone may be required to contribute during the allocated discussion time. understanding this format prepare debate for the topic which I will be providing.
I understand the debate format perfectly. Please go ahead and share your assigned topic, and I'll prepare a full debate script for you - covering the opening statement, rebuttal, audience Q&A responses, and closing statement, all timed to fit the format above.
topic: energy drinks should be banned for under 18. Include points about the teenage girl who died last year due to energy drinks. State facts and sources. It should be strong and well opposing the opponents and convincing to the audience.
Asking for Preferences
Searching the Web
teenage girl died energy drink 2025 death case
Searching PubMed
energy drinks adolescents health risks cardiovascular
Searching the Web
energy drink ban under 18 statistics health effects caffeine adolescents 2024 2025
I have everything needed. Here is your full debate script:
DEBATE: Energy Drinks Should Be Banned for Under 18
Side: FOR the Ban (Team A)
SECTION 1 — OPENING STATEMENT (3 minutes)
Speak at a measured pace. This runs roughly 450-500 words, about 3 minutes.
Good [morning/afternoon], everyone. Respected moderator, Dr. Rachel, my fellow debaters, and audience.
We stand firmly on this side: energy drinks must be banned for anyone under the age of 18. This is not about restricting young people's freedom. This is about protecting their lives. And sadly, we have a name that makes that point impossible to ignore.
Larissa Nicole Rodriguez. 17 years old. A cheerleader. A tennis player. Accepted into nearly 20 colleges and universities. A teenager with a bright future. She died on October 20, 2025, in Weslaco, Texas. The Hidalgo County Medical Examiner determined her cause of death as cardiomyopathy - an enlarged heart - caused by excessive caffeine consumption. The only substance found in her system was caffeine. No drugs. No alcohol. Just a can of Alani Nu energy drink that she had started drinking because of social media influencers promoting it as a "wellness" product. Her family has since filed a wrongful death lawsuit, and her attorney stated clearly: "This is a heartbreaking and entirely preventable tragedy." (Source: NBC News, Today.com, KCRA - 2025/2026)
One can of Alani Nu contains 200 milligrams of caffeine. Health experts and pediatricians recommend that teenagers consume no more than 100 milligrams of caffeine per day - and ideally zero. So a single can already doubles the maximum safe limit. Larissa was drinking one a day. The product she was consuming every day, sold freely at a grocery store, contained twice the caffeine a teenager's body should handle. No one stopped her. No law prevented the sale.
Now let us look at this at scale. According to the UK Government's Department of Health and Social Care (September 2025), a landmark systematic review of 57 studies covering over 1.2 million children and young people across more than 21 countries found consistent links between energy drink consumption in children and:
- Increased headaches, tiredness, and stomach problems
- Significantly reduced sleep quality and duration
- Higher risk of anxiety, stress, and depression
- An increased risk of suicide
- Reduced academic performance
82% of parents surveyed in the UK in December 2024 reported being very concerned about the effects of energy drinks on their children. 61% of teachers confirmed these drinks negatively impact student health and well-being. (Source: GOV.UK, Banning High-Caffeine Energy Drinks Consultation, 2025)
Poland implemented a nationwide ban on energy drink sales to under-18s on January 1, 2024, and results already show a measurable decline in consumption among minors. The UK proposed a similar ban in September 2025. The science is clear. The governments are moving. Why should our children remain unprotected?
These are not sports drinks. These are not fruit juices. They are stimulant-heavy beverages marketed aggressively to young people through social media influencers, deliberately designed to create loyalty in the youngest consumers. A warning label on a can did not save Larissa Rodriguez. A law might have.
We call for a ban. We call for action. And we call it urgent.
SECTION 2 — REBUTTAL (3 minutes)
Respond to likely opposition arguments. ~450 words.
Thank you. Now let us address what the opposing team will likely argue.
They will say: "It's parental responsibility, not the government's job."
We agree that parenting matters. But Larissa Rodriguez's parents were not negligent. She bought the drink herself, from a grocery store, openly sold with no age restriction. Parental awareness alone cannot substitute for legislation. We do not say "it is the parent's responsibility" when we ban alcohol from minors. We do not say "teach your children better" when we restrict tobacco. We pass laws - because we recognize that some products carry a systemic risk that individual families cannot manage alone. Energy drinks deserve the same legal protection.
They will say: "Teens just need education, not bans."
Education is important - but it is not enough on its own. The same systematic review of 1.2 million young people we cited showed that awareness of risks did not prevent consumption. Why? Because these products are designed and marketed to be addictive. The caffeine creates dependency. The influencer marketing creates desire before the brain has fully developed the capacity for risk assessment. The adolescent brain, as neuroscience consistently shows, is not yet equipped to weigh long-term health consequences against immediate social reward. A law protects where education falls short.
They will say: "Moderate consumption is fine."
Define "moderate" for a 15-year-old buying what social media calls a "wellness drink." There is no standard. There is no enforcement. The label says "not recommended for children" - that is a suggestion, not a barrier. Larissa's daily Alani Nu was marketed as a fitness and wellness product. She was not aware she was putting her heart at risk. And the company hid behind a tiny warning label while actively marketing to minors through influencers. Self-regulation by companies has consistently failed. (Source: KCRA, 2025/2026)
They will say: "Banning it will just push teens to find it underground."
Polish data from 2025 - collected after their January 2024 ban - shows that energy drink consumption among minors dropped meaningfully after the ban came into force. Bans do work. Age restrictions work for alcohol. They work for tobacco. They work for energy drinks too. Imperfect enforcement is not an argument against a life-saving policy - it is an argument for better enforcement.
The bottom line: One young woman is dead. The science covers over a million children. Governments on multiple continents are acting. Our opposition has no equivalent evidence, no equivalent tragedy, and no equivalent urgency.
SECTION 3 — AUDIENCE QUESTIONS (4 minutes)
Anticipated tough questions + strong answers
Q: Aren't there bigger health threats to teenagers than energy drinks?
Yes, there are many. But "there are worse problems" has never been a reason to ignore a preventable death. We are not saying energy drinks are the only issue. We are saying they are a solvable issue. One law, one age restriction - and thousands of teenagers are protected from a product that has already killed a 17-year-old with no pre-existing conditions.
Q: Wouldn't a ban hurt businesses and personal freedom?
The same argument was made about banning cigarettes from minors. We now look back at that debate and find it obviously right to have acted. Economic interests of a $27 billion industry should not outweigh the cardiac health of adolescents. Freedom of choice is a right for adults with fully developed judgment - not for children being targeted by influencer marketing.
Q: What about coffee? That has caffeine too - will you ban that?
Coffee is not marketed as a fitness supplement. It is not sold in 200mg-per-can doses with taurine, guarana, and other compounding stimulants. Coffee is not endorsed by athletes on TikTok and Instagram to middle schoolers. Energy drinks are a qualitatively different product, and that distinction matters. The UK government's own proposals specifically target "high-caffeine energy drinks" - not all caffeinated products.
Q: Is there proof that caffeine alone caused Larissa's death?
The Hidalgo County Medical Examiner officially listed her cause of death as cardiomyopathy from excessive caffeine. Toxicology confirmed no other substances in her system. Her attorney stated she had no pre-existing heart conditions. The medical and legal record is as clear as it can be.
SECTION 4 — FREE SPEECH & CLOSING STATEMENT (2 minutes, split with your team)
Your portion: approximately 1 minute, ~150 words
Ladies and gentlemen, we have presented you with data from over a million children. We have presented you with systematic reviews from 57 studies across 21 countries. We have presented you with the actions of national governments. We have presented you with a medical examiner's finding.
But most importantly, we have presented you with Larissa Rodriguez - 17 years old, no health problems, no recklessness, just a can of a drink that the shelves made available to her and that social media made seem safe.
She cannot debate today. But we can debate for her.
The question is not whether a ban is convenient. The question is whether we value the lives and health of young people more than we value the freedom of a $27 billion industry to market stimulants to children.
We believe we do. Ban energy drinks for under 18. Thank you.
QUICK REFERENCE - KEY FACTS TO MEMORIZE
| Fact | Source |
|---|---|
| Larissa Rodriguez, 17, died October 20, 2025, Texas | NBC News / Today.com / KCRA |
| Cause: cardiomyopathy from excessive caffeine (medical examiner) | Hidalgo County Medical Examiner |
| Alani Nu: 200mg caffeine per can; teen limit is max 100mg/day | American Academy of Pediatrics |
| Systematic review: 57 studies, 1.2 million+ children, 21+ countries | Ajibo et al., 2024 (cited by UK Gov) |
| UK proposed ban on energy drinks for under-16s, Sept 2025 | GOV.UK, Dept. of Health & Social Care |
| Poland banned sales to under-18s from Jan 1, 2024 | PMC / Polish health research 2025 |
| 82% of UK parents very concerned about energy drinks for children | UK DfE Omnibus Survey, Dec 2024 |
| 61% of teachers say energy drinks negatively impact student health | UK DfE Omnibus Survey, Dec 2024 |
| US energy drink market: $27 billion in 2025 (up 80% in 5 years) | Consumer Reports / Circana, 2025 |
Tips for delivery:
- When you mention Larissa Rodriguez, slow down. Let the name land. The audience needs to feel it, not just hear it.
- During the rebuttal, lean forward slightly and speak directly to the opposing team, then turn to the audience for your final sentence of each counter-argument.
- Prepare a printed reference card with just the numbers (57 studies, 1.2 million children, 200mg vs 100mg, October 2025) - you can glance at it without it looking unprepared.
- If the opposition brings up a point you have not prepared for, your fallback is always: "That may be true, but no argument today has explained why Larissa Rodriguez is dead."
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.