Here's the practical consequence: 9 ads per minute turns the internet into a health hazard. Constant ad bombardment is linked to increased anxiety, attention problems, and worse decision-making. And many ads push pseudoscience or junk food. Sure, the other side says free access helps people who can't pay. That's fair. But a free internet that erodes cognitive health isn't a good deal. We're paying with our mental wellbeing, and that cost is too high.

Imagine someone with a panic attack searching "chest pain," and every few seconds they're hit with ads for sketchy supplements and junk food. That's not just annoying; it's a health risk. My opponent asks whether no access is worse than a paywall. Fair point, exclusion matters. But the other side treats attention as a harmless price. It isn't. Research links ad saturation to anxiety and impaired decisions, and health misinformation spreads through the same pipes. Free access is worth defending, but not when the toll is measurable harm. We can fund access without monetizing our brains.

Imagine someone managing diabetes looking up carb counts, and every few seconds an ad for sugary cereal or a miracle supplement interrupts. That's a health risk, not just an annoyance. My opponent says the only choice is ads or a paywall. That's a false binary. Public funding or low-cost models can keep access open without bombarding brains. Exclusion is real, fair point, but we don't have to trade measurable health harm for it. The free internet isn't worth that cost when better options exist.