The Instigator
dragonb95
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
iamnotapedophile
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

California should adopt New York's ban on sugary drinks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
dragonb95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,070 times Debate No: 31059
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

dragonb95

Con

Hello readers! My name is Jack and today we will be debating sugary drinks. Please pay no attention to my opponent's username when judging conduct. He is just making a bad joke.

The government should exist as a protector of the citizens, not a nanny. When it comes down to beverages, consumers have a right to choose what they are drinking.

DEFINITIONS

California: The entire state of California Republic
Adopt: Enforce the laws for the whole state without ANY changes to it's articles, except technicalities pertaining to the differences of the two places.
New York: New York City, New York
Ban on sugary drinks: Michael Bloomberg's ban on the sale of drinks greated than 16 oz. in FSE (food service establishments). Exceptions include water, things with more than 50% milk, etc.
Sugary drinks: Soda

CONSTRUCT
My team's points are the following:
(1) This act is a direct violation of freedom of choice.
(2) This ban can affect small businesses negatively.
(3) Warning Labels are a much better alternative.

Assuming my opponent posts his points punctually (no refutations yet) we can begin the debate and start refuting each other's points and expanding in round two.
iamnotapedophile

Pro

Definitions:
1. Adopt:Take up or start to use or follow.
2. Sugary drinks: 16 ounce (or more) cups or bottles of sugary sodas or other beverages

Points (leaving out refutations)
1. Obesity in California is a growing epidemic, and studies prove that there is a direct correlation between sugary drinks and rising obesity levels.

2. Studies have proven that lowering portion size lowers obesity levels.

3. There is a financial incentive to adopt this policy, as obesity costs California billions of dollars every year.

I have been asked by dragonb95 to expand on these points in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
dragonb95

Con

Before I begin, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It sounds like it's going to be fun. :)

Points
1. This act is a direct violation of freedom of choice.
The government doesn’t have the right to choose our diet. America isn’t a totalitarian dictatorship where the government gets to decide what we eat or drink. Because of freedom of choice, the government can’t restrict our portions. What comes next? Restricting how many slices of cake you can eat? This law is just part of a string of “food nanny” laws Bloomberg has passed (1). The only reason he got this law and others, such as the restriction of regular sized candy for trick or treating, and the banning of salty foods given to homeless shelters, the only reason he got these laws passed is that he runs them over a board of health that he has chosen himself in office (2)! A majority of New Yorkers are opposed to the ban (3)
2. This ban can affect small businesses
According to James Brandt of Latham and Watkins attorneys, “It’s not going to stop anybody from drinking soda, it’s going to push people from the Sabrett guy to the Duane Reade or the 7-11.” This law bans sodas from “Food service establishments”, such as restaurants, delis, and stadiums. However, this law excludes grocery stores and 7-11’s. This ban will stop people from buying their soda at small delis or restaurants and send them to grocery stores and 7-11s, which are apparently not food service establishments. One of the most popular 16 oz. drink is the Big Gulp, sold exclusively at 7-11s. Judge, this ban, while aiming to stop people from drinking big sodas, will just push them all to big businesses instead of small delis and restaurants.
3. Warning labels are a much better alternative
In 2003, when the government saw that cigarette sales had surged, their response wasn’t to ban cigarettes, or somehow restrict how many cigarettes are in one pack. Warning labels are extremely effective, too (4,5), and they would be a great alternative for sodas. Warning labels made smokers with a gap in knowledge on the detrimental effects of smoking more aware of the harm smoking can do (5). Many advocacy groups are trying to get warning labels put on sodas to warn consumers (1). Judging by the fact that warning labels are so effective on cigarettes, we can ascertain that putting these labels on sodas would provide all the benefits of the 16 oz. soda bans, without any of the doubts.

In conclusion, nutrition should be an informed, personal choice. We know what is good for our own health, and the government shouldn’t make decisions about what is good for us and what is not.

Sources
(1) cbs
(2) nycgov
(3) abc news
(4) science daily
(5) tobacco control

Please post your expansions and refute my points.
iamnotapedophile

Pro

iamnotapedophile forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dragonb95

Con

Refute arguments. Counter-refute refutations. Vote con.
iamnotapedophile

Pro

iamnotapedophile forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
dragonb95

Con

Well, this is awkward. Vote con. Imnota please respond.
iamnotapedophile

Pro

iamnotapedophile forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
dragonb95

Con

Well, this is too bad.
iamnotapedophile

Pro

iamnotapedophile forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
dragonb95iamnotapedophileTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
dragonb95iamnotapedophileTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
dragonb95iamnotapedophileTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: !ff
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
dragonb95iamnotapedophileTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy choice.