1. Non-Discrimination
2. Egalitarianism
3. Pro-Democracy

The bill should be supported because it aims to protect vulnerable populations, including children and individuals with gambling addictions, from the harmful effects of gambling advertisements. By reducing exposure, the bill helps to prevent the normalization of gambling, which can lead to addiction. This aligns with the principle of non-discrimination as it seeks to safeguard groups that are disproportionately affected by gambling harm. Additionally, the bill is a step towards ensuring equality in public health outcomes by addressing the societal impacts of gambling addiction. Furthermore, by following expert recommendations and community expectations, the bill supports democratic values in policymaking.

1. Propertarianism
2. Intellectualism

The bill should be opposed because it imposes significant restrictions on the advertising rights of gambling companies, potentially infringing on property rights and economic freedoms. The gambling industry is a legitimate economic sector that contributes to the economy and provides employment. By implementing a blanket ban on advertising, the bill could stifle market competition and innovation within the industry [Judgment]. Furthermore, it may set a concerning precedent for government overreach into other sectors. Instead of a ban, promoting public awareness and education about gambling risks could be a more balanced approach, respecting both individual freedoms and societal health [Judgment].