The Instigator
geekspeech
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Fun-and-easy
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

California should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Fun-and-easy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,391 times Debate No: 30895
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

geekspeech

Pro

Hello, I would first like to thank my opponent for being here today.
Now I would like to go on to my own points.
1.American"s are becoming obese.
-"About 12 million (16.9%) of U.S. children ages 2 to 19 are obese.
-Nearly one in three (31.7%) U.S. children (23,500,000) ages 2 to 19 are overweight or obese.
-Over one-third (33.7%) of U.S. adults are obese (nearly 75 million adults)." American Heart Association
"A huge, decades-long study involving more than 33,000 Americans has yielded the first clear proof that drinking sugary beverages interacts with genes that affect weight, amplifying a person's risk of obesity beyond what it would be from heredity alone.
This means that such drinks are especially harmful to people with genes that predispose them to weight gain. And most of us have at least some of these genes. Collectively, the results strongly suggest that sugary drinks cause people to pack on the pounds, independent of other unhealthy behavior such as overeating and getting too little exercise, scientists say." Huffingtonpost

2.Sugary Drinks lead to health problems.
Dr Hans-Peter Kubis, who led the research at Bangor University, said: "Our results give a stark warning against regularly drinking sugar-sweetened drinks."
He added: "Not only can regular sugar intake acutely change our body metabolism; in fact it seems that our muscles are able to sense the sugars and make our metabolism more inefficient, not only in the present but in the future as well.
"This will lead a reduced ability to burn fat and to fat gain. Moreover, it will make it more difficult for our body to cope with rises in blood sugar."
-"The point about sodas is they are an easy target for public health intervention," said Marion Nestle, a nutritionist, New York University professor and influential author of "What to Eat." "All they are is sugar and calories. There's no redeeming feature. The last thing Americans need is extra calories."Nor, soda's opponents add, do Americans need increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay and other problems."People need to step back and look at their health," said Michelle Dudash, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based registered dietitian, author and nutritionist. "If you're overweight, cut back on the soda."If you have weak tooth enamel, cut back on the soda. If you have a risk of heart disease, cut back on the soda."
"According to a new study, men who drink one sugar-sweetened beverage daily have a 20 percent higher risk of coronary heart disease than men who drink none.
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health tracked nearly 43,000 participants in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male dentists, pharmacists, physicians, veterinarians and other health professionals ages 40 to 75, almost all of whom were of European descent.
For 22 years, the men filled out surveys about their diets and other health habits. The researchers also collected blood samples from more than 18,000 men who were demographically similar to those in the survey.
The results, published today in the American Heart Association's journal, Circulation, found that drinking 12 ounces of regular soda, fruit drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages daily was associated with a higher risk of heart disease, even after taking into account other cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use and a family history of heart disease." ABC news

3.Healthy alternatives are available.
-"Infused Water " Which tasted like soda but really is just water with vegetables like cucumbers added
- Iced Tea - an easy way to control the terms of your tea: caffeinated varieties like black, green and white tea make nice, strong iced teas -- but herbal options also abound for those of you who care to stay caffeine-free.
- Seltzer+Juice - NYU nutritionist and HuffPost Healthy Living contributor Lisa Young recommends adding a splash of juice to plain seltzer for a jazzed up treat. "It beats sugar in sodas!" she told The Huffington Post
-Iced Coffee - For those who get a kick from caffeine, flavored water just can't beat a Diet Coke. That's where iced coffee comes in: highly adaptable (add or skip the sugar! use dairy milk or a substitute like almond!), relatively inexpensive and with a strong, almost caramel-like flavor, a cold, eye-popping coffee can serve as a lower sugar alternative to your favorite soda.
-Fresh Juice - Unlike bottled varieties, freshly juiced fruits and vegetables have no added sugar. By selecting the ingredients, you can also control sugar portions by tempering sweet fruits like mangoes, grapes and melons with low-sugar, high-fiber fare such as kale, celery and lettuce."
Huffingtonpost

4.It"s an expense that people don"t need to spend.

-It"s just paying money for sugary water.
-"It costs association's members about $600,000 in labeling and other expenses for bottles, Vice President Mike Redman said in court papers. Reconfiguring "16-ounce" cups that are actually made slightly bigger, to leave room at the top, is expected to take cup manufacturers three months to a year and cost them anywhere from more than $100,000 to several millions of dollars, Foodservice Packaging Institute President Lynn Dyer said in court documents."
- "Sustain have estimated that the NHS is forking out a whopping 6 billion Euros each year treating diet-related illnesses.
-If we are going to continue to consume products that we know are bad for our health why shouldn't we be contributing more toward the eventual cost of treating our self-imposed health issues? Yes, I know we all pay National Insurance, but the NHS is buckling under the ever-increasing demand for healthcare and facing an annual 10billion Euro shortfall."
Yahoo Finance in UK and Ireland

-This is money that we could spend saving lives, helping improve our children"s education, and helping the environment
-Because of these reasons, I strongly urge a proposition ballet.

Thank you and for all these reasons, I will strongly urge a proposition ballet.
Fun-and-easy

Con

Hello.
First of all, thank you to Geekspeech for posting this debate. I have a tournament on this topic so this is great practice. Additionally, thank you to the voters and the comments that will be given. It really helps me prepare for future debates. Now, as a road map, I would like to go on to bringing some background up on this topic, bringing up a counter plan, refuting my opponents points, and bringing up my own arguments.

So what exactly is New York's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks?
According to the report (http://www.nyc.gov...) by the New York City government officials, "Sugary drinks shall not be offered or sold in cups or manufacturer-sealed containers (e.g. bottles, cans) that contain more than 16 fluid ounces. [This excludes super markets and convenience stores.]
a. Sugary drinks are defined as beverages that have added sugar, contain volume and have more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces.
b. Does not apply to alcoholic beverages, low-calorie drinks served in non-self-service cups that contain less than or equal to 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces, including diet sodas/colas, unsweetened coffees and teas, water, or fruit or vegetable juice without added sugar."

So now, onto refuting my opponent's points. First, I would like to mention that all of the proposition's sources are just newspaper publishers, such as Yahoo or Huffington Post, not specific articles or links.
-The Proposition's first point is that Americans are becoming obese. However, banning different sizes of soda is not the correct solvency. These people can just go back for seconds, or even thirds, eliminating the entire use of the plan. The solvency instead, is to place a tax on the sugary drinks. With this money earned, the government can benifit the more important things in life, such as the educational system. Additionally, the government can use the money to teach children in school good healthy methods of eating.
-My opponent's second point was that sugary drinks lead to health probelms. However, this argumen is non-unique as it can happen anywhere, with anything, to anyone. Eating too much rice leads to a negativly affected back.Too much weightlifting could injure your arms. Too much reading can hurt your eyes. Obviously, this also applies to sugary drinks, and also everything else in the world. Tying into the proposition's third point, they mentioned such "health choices" such as Iced Coffee, but Iced Coffee is not a healthy choice as the result of caffeine.
-My opponent's third point was that healthy alternatives are available. Unfortunatly, it does not make an impact whether there are healthy choices or not. There are already lots of healthy alternatives, with or without sugary drinks, and either way, they won't work if they aren't enforced. Thus, this argument that the Proposition side makes has no ground. Again, as an example, Iced Coffee was included. Iced Coffee is unhealthy because of all the caffeine affecting your brain and so is not a healthy choice at all.
-My opponent's fourth point was that "It's an expense that people don't need to spend". First of all, it should be an individual's choice of what to do. Additionally, the money is keeping our economy circulating. At this time, we cannot have a worse economy.

Ok. Now onto the my side's flow.
First, I would like to bring up a counter plan. The counter plan would be that instead of banning sugary drinks, the govenrment would pass a law that would add 1cent of tax per 1 ounce. Thus, a 8 ounce can of sugary drinks would cost the original price and original tax, plus and 8 cent extra tax. This way, the government would not only make money, but it would also help decrease the amount of obesity in today's America.

1. Banning Sugary Drinks Violates The People's Freedom.
Why should the govenrment and other people be able to limit individual's freedom? All over the world, people look up at America as the free country, where even the simplist ideas are free to practice. In the declaration of independence, it is stated that " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (http://www.ushistory.org...) One of these puruit of happiness is freedom, from being able to own your own house to being able to drink whatever amound of soda you want to purchase. On top of this, the first amendment of the constitution, clearly says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.(http://www.archives.gov...)" We can, we are allowed to practice the right to drink whatever we want, whatever the quality.

2. Adopting The Ban On Sugary Drinks Hurts The Economy/The Opposition's Plan (mentioned above) Helps The Economy.
Many businesses across the country rely on soda drinks (sugary drinks) to help keep them up and running. ""Proposals like the soda ban discourage new business and hurt our reputation as the dining capital of the world," Andrew Moesel, spokesperson for the New York State Restaurant Association, said in a statement. "Reducing obesity is an important goal, but we want to partner with government to come up with effective ways to confront the problem. What we don't need is more burdensome regulation making it harder for businesses to function.(http://www.cbsnews.com...)"The average US person drinks 403 cokes per year. And one coke is about a dollar each. That would be 403 dollars per person in the United States. There are about 2.5 million people in the United States. That would amount to about $1,007,500,000 per year! The economy of the United States really needs this money to pay for jobs and to help our education. So if people want to drink sugary drinks, let them drink them. (http://articles.businessinsider.com...)" If instead of following New York's lead, California adopts a tax as mentioned at the beginning of this speech, then the government would make money off people while helping the general public fight the evils of obesity. California currently has debt of 427,787,580,582 (and rising!) (http://www.usdebtclock.org...). What the state of California needs is not a ban in which the economy sinks and the debt rises, but a tax in which the economy gets better and better.

Thank you, and I will add more points in the later speeches. For all these reasons, I strongly urge a opposition ballot.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
geekspeech

Pro

Hello. First I would like to thank Fun-And-Easy for accepting this debate. Now I would like to make rejoinders.
They said to my first point that the government will help them think of healthy methods of eating. The problem is that schools are already trying to do that. Does it stop kids and adults from not drinking sugary drinks? Obviously not.
They said to my second point that health problems can happen anywhere, not just sugary drinks. According to (http://www.livestrong.com......) in the article Health Problems and Soft Drinks, it states that soft drinks cause tooth decay, obesity, and other health problems.
They said to my third point that it is not impacted, so I will impact it now. My third point is trying to say that there are other healthy alternatives that are available, and not as expensive, such as water. Water is very healthy for you, and it does not make you become obese.
They said to my fourth point that it's the people's choice. It is their choice, we are just limiting the amount that they drinks. We are not saying that they can never drink soft drinks anymore, we are just changing it so that the amount that you drink is a healthy amount for your body. Since it is the government's duty to protect its citizens, we should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.

Now I would like to continue on to making refutations.
First their plan. They said that adding a tax would decrease the amount of obesity, but it's not like people that usually drink sugary drinks are going to stop drinking their normal amount because they have to pay 1 cent per ounce.
- Their first point is that Banning Sugary Drinks Violates The People's Freedom. If we follow along to what they are saying, taxing sugary drinks is also taking away people's Pursuit of Happiness, because they don't want to pay a tax on their sugary drinks.
- Their second point is that Adopting The Ban On Sugary Drinks Hurts The Economy. They said that helping the economy is more important then obesity matters. Unfortunately, if all people become obese, half of them would probably die, and half would be to obese to do any work, so the economy would fail anyways. And since lives are the most important things in this debate, I strongly urge a proposition ballet. Thank you.
Fun-and-easy

Con

Hello again!

First of all, I would like to refute/rejoind my opponents' points. Then, if space allows, I will bring up new arguments.
To make this debate easy to understand, for my refutations/rejoinders, I have made the opposition side in bold, and the proposition side italic. Please also know that (2) means the second round. Thank you!

Proposition: Point #1 is "Americans are becoming obese."
Opposition: Banning certain sizes of soda is not the correct solvency. (People can go back for seconds....) The solvency instead, is to place a tax on the sugary drinks. With the money earned, the government can spend money on more important things in life, such as the educational system. (The government can use the money to teach kids about good healthy eating ways.
Proposition (2): Schools already doing that, but it does not stop adults from drinking sugary drinks.
Opposition (2): The realiazation is that these kids have not yet become adults, so they have not had a chance to prove what they have learned. I would like to also mention that we arn't trying to STOP people from drinking sugary drinks, instead, drinking saftley.

Proposition: Point #2 is "Sugary Dinks lead to health probelms."
Opposition: However, this argumen is non-unique as it can happen anywhere, with anything, to anyone. Eating too much rice leads to a negativly affected back.Too much weightlifting could injure your arms. Too much reading can hurt your eyes. Obviously, this also applies to sugary drinks, and also everything else in the world. Tying into the proposition's third point, they mentioned such "health choices" such as Iced Coffee, but Iced Coffee is not a healthy choice as the result of caffeine.
Proposition (2): They said to my second point that health problems can happen anywhere, not just sugary drinks. According to (http://www.livestrong.com.........) in the article Health Problems and Soft Drinks, it states that soft drinks cause tooth decay, obesity, and other health problems.
Opposition (2): The propostion has not directly rejoined, as in their Prop. 2, they only showed statistics that soft drinks do cause health probelms. They did not refute the point made that their second argument is non-unique.

Proposition: Point #3 is "Healthy alternatives are available."
Opposition: My opponent's third point was that healthy alternatives are available. Unfortunatly, it does not make an impact whether there are healthy choices or not. There are already lots of healthy alternatives, with or without sugary drinks, and either way, they won't work if they aren't enforced. Thus, this argument that the Proposition side makes has no ground. Again, as an example, Iced Coffee was included. Iced Coffee is unhealthy because of all the caffeine affecting your brain and so is not a healthy choice at all.
Proposition (2): They said to my third point that it is not impacted, so I will impact it now. My third point is trying to say that there are other healthy alternatives that are available, and not as expensive, such as water. Water is very healthy for you, and it does not make you become obese.
Opposition (2): The proposition commented on how that water, an healthy alternative, is not as expensive. However, in some places that is the exact opposite. In the middle of the desert, for ex. Utah, water is an unavailable resource that cannot be easily retrieved and must be bought. Additionally, the Proposition has dropped the fact about their mentioning of Iced Coffee.

Proposition: Point #4 is "It's an expense that people don't need to spend."
Opposition: My opponent's fourth point was that "It's an expense that people don't need to spend". First of all, it should be an individual's choice of what to do. Additionally, the money is keeping our economy circulating. At this time, we cannot have a worse economy.
Proposition (2): They said to my fourth point that it's the people's choice. It is their choice, we are just limiting the amount that they drinks. We are not saying that they can never drink soft drinks anymore, we are just changing it so that the amount that you drink is a healthy amount for your body. Since it is the government's duty to protect its citizens, we should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.
Opposition (2): My opponent has stated that it's still the people's choice, just a bit more limited. However, a individual's choice isn't as free if there are limits. On top of this, they have mentioned that it is the government's duty to protect it's citizens. But it is also the government's duty to make sure their citizens are happy. By limiting freedom, by placing a limit on choices, citizens will not be happy at all. I would like to comment that they have dropped the refutation of economy.

Opposition: Point #1 "Banning Sugary Drinks Violates the People's Freedom."
Proposition (2):Their first point is that Banning Sugary Drinks Violates The People's Freedom. If we follow along to what they are saying, taxing sugary drinks is also taking away people's Pursuit of Happiness, because they don't want to pay a tax on their sugary drinks.
Opposition (2): Of course, there is a limit to freedom. However, the limit does NOT INCLUDE CHOICES. Choices will and cannot be denied. On top of this, taxing will not take away the pursuit of happiness because it gives back directly to the people, by adding conveniences such as better roads and education.

Opposition: Point #2 "Adopting The Ban On Sugary Drinks Hurts The Economy/The Opposition's Plan (mentioned above) Helps The Economy."
Proposition (2): Their second point is that Adopting The Ban On Sugary Drinks Hurts The Economy. They said that helping the economy is more important then obesity matters. Unfortunately, if all people become obese, half of them would probably die, and half would be to obese to do any work, so the economy would fail anyways. And since lives are the most important things in this debate, I strongly urge a proposition ballet.
Opposition (2): Their refutation can be used both ways. Without a good economy, one cannot have the nessasary materials to have a good healthy life. On top of this, the money earned from taxing could also be used to fund Medicare, Medicade, and other medical resources.

Opposition: Plan; The counter plan would be that instead of banning sugary drinks, the govenrment would pass a law that would add 1cent of tax per 1 ounce. Thus, a 8 ounce can of sugary drinks would cost the original price and original tax, plus and 8 cent extra tax. This way, the government would not only make money, but it would also help decrease the amount of obesity in today's America.
Proposition (2):They said that adding a tax would decrease the amount of obesity, but it's not like people that usually drink sugary drinks are going to stop drinking their normal amount because they have to pay 1 cent per ounce.
Opposition (2): First of all, the Proposition has not provided a plan, thus, by defult we would go with the opposition's counter plan. On top of this, the proposition also impacted how charging 1 cent per ounce will not change the obesity rate. However, the realization is that with the money earned, we can heal not only obesity, but also other medical probelms such as cancer! We can SAVE LIVES, and lives are the most important thing in this debate. Additionally, they dropped the fact that the counter plan would help the economy.

Unfortunatly, I won't be able to bring up any more points because I don't have enough space, and it won't be fare for the Proposition team if I bring up any more points.

Have a nice day!

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 2
geekspeech

Pro

Hello, first I would like to refute and make rejoinders, then I would like to refute their new points.
First we said,
Proposition: Point #1 is "Americans are becoming obese."
Opposition: Banning certain sizes of soda is not the correct solvency. (People can go back for seconds....) The solvency instead, is to place a tax on the sugary drinks. With the money earned, the government can spend money on more important things in life, such as the educational system. (The government can use the money to teach kids about good healthy eating ways.
Proposition (2): Schools already doing that, but it does not stop adults from drinking sugary drinks.
Opposition (2): The realization is that these kids have not yet become adults, so they have not had a chance to prove what they have learned. I would like to also mention that we aren't trying to STOP people from drinking sugary drinks, instead, drinking safely.
Proposition (3): Students are learning everyday, and they are being tested everyday, so instead of just shoving them all their tests when they become adults, we are making them learn day by day.


Proposition: Point #2 is "Sugary Drinks lead to health problems."
Opposition: However, this argument is non-unique as it can happen anywhere, with anything, to anyone. Eating too much rice leads to a negatively affected back. Too much weightlifting could injure your arms. Too much reading can hurt your eyes. Obviously, this also applies to sugary drinks, and also everything else in the world. Tying into the proposition's third point, they mentioned such "health choices" such as Iced Coffee, but Iced Coffee is not a healthy choice as the result of caffeine.
Proposition (2): They said to my second point that health problems can happen anywhere, not just sugary drinks. According to (http://www.livestrong.com............) in the article Health Problems and Soft Drinks, it states that soft drinks cause tooth decay, obesity, and other health problems.
Opposition (2): The proposition has not directly rejoined, as in their Prop. 2, they only showed statistics that soft drinks do cause health problems. They did not refute the point made that their second argument is non-unique.
Proposition (3): Actually, it is directly joined because our point is that it leads to health problems, and we have clearly brought up evidence that leads directly to Sugary drinks causing health problems.

Proposition: Point #3 is "Healthy alternatives are available."
Opposition: My opponent's third point was that healthy alternatives are available. Unfortunately, it does not make an impact whether there are healthy choices or not. There are already lots of healthy alternatives, with or without sugary drinks, and either way, they won't work if they aren't enforced. Thus, this argument that the Proposition side makes has no ground. Again, as an example, Iced Coffee was included. Iced Coffee is unhealthy because of all the caffeine affecting your brain and so is not a healthy choice at all.
Proposition (2): They said to my third point that it is not impacted, so I will impact it now. My third point is trying to say that there are other healthy alternatives that are available, and not as expensive, such as water. Water is very healthy for you, and it does not make you become obese.
Opposition (2): The proposition commented on how that water, an healthy alternative, is not as expensive. However, in some places that is the exact opposite. In the middle of the desert, for ex. Utah, water is an unavailable resource that cannot be easily retrieved and must be bought. Additionally, the Proposition has dropped the fact about their mentioning of Iced Coffee.
Proposition (3). What we are trying to point out is that in most places, water is very free and it is healthy for you. Also, that still does not refute their point about having healthy alternatives because all they are saying is that water is expensive. The problem is that water is less expensive then sugary drinks, even in the desert because sugary drinks needs some sort of water to start it off, and water by itself is good. The bad things about sugary drinks is that they add sugar to the water.

Proposition: Point #4 is "It's an expense that people don't need to spend."
Opposition: My opponent's fourth point was that "It's an expense that people don't need to spend". First of all, it should be an individuals choice of what to do. Additionally, the money is keeping our economy circulating. At this time, we cannot have a worse economy.
Proposition (2): They said to my fourth point that it's the people's choice. It is their choice, we are just limiting the amount that they drinks. We are not saying that they can never drink soft drinks anymore, we are just changing it so that the amount that you drink is a healthy amount for your body. Since it is the government's duty to protect its citizens, we should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.
Opposition (2): My opponent has stated that it's still the people's choice, just a bit more limited. However, a individuals choice isn't as free if there are limits. On top of this, they have mentioned that it is the government's duty to protect it's citizens. But it is also the government's duty to make sure their citizens are happy. By limiting freedom, by placing a limit on choices, citizens will not be happy at all. I would like to comment that they have dropped the refutation of economy.
Proposition (3): What is more important, people staying alive while being a decent amount of happy, or citizens becoming obese and not able to do anything so the economy goes down, because people with health problems will not be able to work. (That also refutes their statement about the economy) We are not making all citizens unhappy. Half of them will be really happy, while others will be safer and a descent amount of happy.

Opposition: Point #1 "Banning Sugary Drinks Violates the People's Freedom."
Proposition (2):Their first point is that Banning Sugary Drinks Violates The People's Freedom. If we follow along to what they are saying, taxing sugary drinks is also taking away people's Pursuit of Happiness, because they don't want to pay a tax on their sugary drinks.
Opposition (2): Of course, there is a limit to freedom. However, the limit does NOT INCLUDE CHOICES. Choices will and cannot be denied. On top of this, taxing will not take away the pursuit of happiness because it gives back directly to the people, by adding conveniences such as better roads and education.
Proposition (3): In fact, most people hate paying taxes, so that actually is going against the pursuit of happiness by taxing them, as their plan clearly states. Also, most of the taxpayers money doesn't go back to them, and since they have not stated any clear evidence, please make sure that they will not post any sources in their 3rd argument, because that is bringing up a new source (a new point).

I will not post our arguments here, because I will run out of characters. This is to their second point: Again, they also have not brought up an sources that the tax money will go to places like medicare, so please make sure that they do not bring this up in their next argument. And they also have agreed with us that without a good economy, we can't have the needs for a halthy life.

Now I would like to way this debate. Their main point is that it helps the economy. We have clearly stated that if people get health problems, it will hurt the economy because a) People will become to obese to work and so their will be less people working and b) And people might die. Since lives and the economy are the most important thing in this debate, I strongly urge a proposition ballet.

Thank you.



Fun-and-easy

Con



Hello, and thank you for joining us for this debate. 

First I would like to make rejourders, and then weigh this debate.

Proposition: Point #1 is "Americans are becoming obese."
...(Opp and Prop[2])
Opp (2): The realization is that these kids have not yet become adults, so they have not had a chance to prove what they have learned. I would like to also mention that we aren't trying to STOP people from drinking sugary drinks, instead, drinking safely.
Prop (3): Students are learning everyday, and they are being tested everyday, so instead of just shoving them all their tests when they become adults, we are making them learn day by day.
Opp (3): First of all, the Proposition does not show how children are being tested everyday, so that has no impact. Aditionally, we ARE making children learn day by day, and test their skills little by little with extra-curricular activities. On top of this, children use the skills they learn now to become better adults, and to use them in their adulthood.

Prop: Point #2 is "Sugary Drinks lead to health problems."
...(Opp and Prop (2))
Opp (2): The proposition has not directly rejoined, as in their Prop. 2, they only showed statistics that soft drinks do cause health problems. They did not refute the point made that their second argument is non-unique.
Prop (3): Actually, it is directly joined because our point is that it leads to health problems, and we have clearly brought up evidence that leads directly to Sugary drinks causing health problems.
Opp (3): It can be true that sugary drinks do cause MINOR health probelms. However, as the proposition did not refute, this probelm can happen anywhere to anyone with anything, thus their argument is ununique.

Prop: Point #3 is "Healthy alternatives are available."
...(Opp and Prop[2])
Opposition (2): The proposition commented on how that water, an healthy alternative, is not as expensive. However, in some places that is the exact opposite. In the middle of the desert, for ex. Utah, water is an unavailable resource that cannot be easily retrieved and must be bought. Additionally, the Proposition has dropped the fact about their mentioning of Iced Coffee.
Proposition (3). What we are trying to point out is that in most places, water is very free and it is healthy for you. Also, that still does not refute their point about having healthy alternatives because all they are saying is that water is expensive. The problem is that water is less expensive then sugary drinks, even in the desert because sugary drinks needs some sort of water to start it off, and water by itself is good. The bad things about sugary drinks is that they add sugar to the water.
Opposition (3): I'll first explain why sugary drinks are less expensive or about the same price as water. They have less water, and more of other ingrediants, thus costing less. The Proposition is not only pointing out that water is healthy for you, but they have not proven why they said unhealthy drinks, such as Iced Coffee, are in their "Healthier Options" List.

Proposition: Point #4 is "It's an expense that people don't need to spend."
...(Opp and Prop[2])
Opposition (2): My opponent has stated that it's still the people's choice, just a bit more limited. However, a individuals choice isn't as free if there are limits. On top of this, they have mentioned that it is the government's duty to protect it's citizens. But it is also the government's duty to make sure their citizens are happy. By limiting freedom, by placing a limit on choices, citizens will not be happy at all. I would like to comment that they have dropped the refutation of economy.
Proposition (3): What is more important, people staying alive while being a decent amount of happy, or citizens becoming obese and not able to do anything so the economy goes down, because people with health problems will not be able to work. (That also refutes their statement about the economy) We are not making all citizens unhappy. Half of them will be really happy, while others will be safer and a descent amount of happy.
Opposition (3): First, I would like to comment that without economy, we won't have any material goods. As humans, most of us seek material goods for happiness. Additionally, how should the Proposition know what citizens like or not like? We can tell that citizens will not like being limited freedom from all the uprisings and the boycotts throughout American history. Plus, the slots where people used to work will now be taken by those unemployed, decreasing the unemployment rate of the US.

Opposition: Point #1 "Banning Sugary Drinks Violates the People's Freedom."
...(Prop [2])
Opposition (2): Of course, there is a limit to freedom. However, the limit does NOT INCLUDE CHOICES. Choices will and cannot be denied. On top of this, taxing will not take away the pursuit of happiness because it gives back directly to the people, by adding conveniences such as better roads and education.
Proposition (3): In fact, most people hate paying taxes, so that actually is going against the pursuit of happiness by taxing them, as their plan clearly states. Also, most of the taxpayers money doesn't go back to them, and since they have not stated any clear evidence, please make sure that they will not post any sources in their 3rd argument, because that is bringing up a new source (a new point).
Opposition (3): So obviously, the proposition has thrown away my refutation in my second speech that there is a limit to everything. Although I have not stated any evidence showing that tax money goes back to the people, you can use common sense to prove this. Look around you. That public road, that's tax money. So is the public schools. Additionally, the Proposition has mentioned for me not to bring up any evidence, so clearly they realize there are evidence for this argumen that I make. Otherwise, they would have not mentioned it at all or would have mentioned it in every argument.

I would like to now WEIGH this debate.
Let's look at it first by evidence. The Proposition side has the burden of evidence, while the Opposition must only defend the status quo. Additionally, while the Opposition has provided clear evidence with links, all except for one of the Proposition's evidence are just publishers, such as "Huffington Post" or "New York Times". How are we to know if this is an opinion or a actuall lagit study? We cannot, thus the Proposition has failed their burden of proof.
Now, let's look at the flow. The Proposition has not refuted all aspects of each of the refutation I have made, so none of their arguments stand. Additionally, the Proposition has completly dropped my second argument, so please carry this accross the flow.

Ok. Let's look at the debate the way the Proposition has weighed this debate. According to them, the Opposition's main argument is economy. They stated that without health, people will not be able to work because they are too obese, and that they will die. I'm not saying people should die, but the life cycle must go on to provide space for incoming generations. With the open spaces, my opponent can get a job. I can too. You can too! And without money, there will be no way for nessasary materials to conduct life. Finally, let's look at the debate through the Proposition's window. Life will be one whose choices will be limited. If the government starts with sugary drinks, who know what will come next? Life will also be one where nobody dies untill a really old age. Good, right? Nope. Your children, the future generation, will not be provided any space. It's like a crowd. Until some people leave the area, no more new people can come in. Now, let's look at the debate through the Opposition's eyes. Life will be in a better USA, with a better economy, which means a greaterr education. Same for any other catagory.

For all these reasons, please vote for the Opposition.

Thank you.
(Please excuse this argument for looking weird, as my computer has been acting weird.)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
I would have attacked the premise that bad things ought to be made illegal by giving a long list of things that ought to be regulated under the premise. Crossing streets on foot, riding bicycles, and driving cars produce many casualties, any kind of high calorie food, sex poses disease threats, nearly all sports pose injury risk, reading or viewing literature with violent themes poses dangers of desensitization, and on and on. The oppression of the nanny state is cumulative.

Anyway, a good debate.
Posted by geekspeech 4 years ago
geekspeech
However, where will the government get all this money to give us food? Also, then the economy would go down because the government would be supplying food for us, so the companies would not make enough money, and their will be an economic crisis.
Posted by DrHaz3 4 years ago
DrHaz3
Government does not need to take an active role in educating nor a new tax to educate as it already has an education tax for public schooling in which health classes are provided. Indeed there are no taxes on groceries and to submit a plan to tax food products just seems completely absurd. Most all food products contain sweeteners such as sugar or corn syrup and if a tax is on one product just because it's in liquid form where does the line stop? Perhaps the government should just step in and make our meals for us so we don't get fat...
Posted by geekspeech 4 years ago
geekspeech
Thank you for your comment, but I would like to point out that health things (such as food) are not taxed at all, so there will be no point in lowering them, because there is no tax on them anyways.
Posted by Fun-and-easy 4 years ago
Fun-and-easy
I would like to thank you for your comment.
I will try to imply that in my tournament.

However, what I was trying to say is that with the money earned from those taxes, the government could educate people (children) about healthy food choices. The government could also use the money to save people's lives by conducting medical studies.
Posted by DrHaz3 4 years ago
DrHaz3
I hate both of your solutions to this because they both are ineffective at dealing with obesity which is your main concerns. Taxes do nothing but increase the price of goods at a time when we should be trying to lower food prices. Banning does nothing but erode individual freedom to choice. A better plan would be to reduce taxes on products that show they are healthy and beneficial effectively reducing their costs and encouraging the use of those products by businesses without increasing the costs to the individual and maintaining individual choice and responsibility. IMHO you both fail at thinking outside the box.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
geekspeechFun-and-easyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A nice debate on a good topic. Both sides agree that there are health problems with sugary drinks, and I think they also agree that there is a freedom of choice issue at some level. Pro has the burden to prove that a ban would be so effective as to provide a health benefit that outweighs the loss of freedom of choice that would be a consequence of the ban. That would require very strong statistical evidence to show that the ban actually improves health, and there is nothing that comes close to such evidence. The better health of people who consume no sugary is not proof a ban would work, it is further proof of the agreed-to premise that consumption is unhealthy. The economic arguments on both sides are unconvincing; paying for infused water is no bargain an the alternatives would stimulate the economy as much as sugar consumption. Pros sources referenced data not disputed by Con, so there is nothing to contest.