The Instigator
E.MacLeod
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Sashil
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should sugary drinks cartons be reduced in size?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Sashil
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 92690
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

E.MacLeod

Pro

In today's society many people are obese and unfit because of too many sugary drinks, such as energy drinks and fizzy (soft) drinks. Many drinks come in massive cartons, such as monster energy, and you feel like you have to drink the whole thing so it doesn't go to waste.
The situation could be helped by reducing the size of drink cartons, and therefore reducing the intake of sugar.
Sashil

Con

My opponent here proposes to reduce the size of sugary drink cartons with the goodwill of helping obese people. This is quite understandable because sugary drinks have a lot of calories that can, in fact, cause people to become obese in the long run.

However, we do not know for sure if reducing the size of the drink cartons would necessarily deter those who crave to have such unhealthy food from doing so. No evidence or argument has been presented to support this claim either. What if a given person bought several of these said 'reduced size' cartons instead of buying a larger one? wouldn't it have the same damage and effect?

To add to this, my opponent claims that a person would drink the entire contents of a large carton because he/she wouldn't want to waste the drink. But this suggested scenario sounds highly unlikely and unrealistic because there are several ways a person could avoid letting the drink go to waste, storing it in the refrigerator would be one example. There is absolutely no reason at all for the person to have to drink the entire contents of the drink in order to save it from getting wasted.

Furthermore, my opponent concludes that by reducing the size of the cartons we reduce the intake of a given person's sugar. This claim is pretty far-fetched because there are several other means by which a person can consume sugar. He could have sweets, toffees, cakes or any of the countless other sweet dishes for that matter. The argument that reduced size of drink cartons would reduce the sugar intake of a person which would further help reduce obesity is foolhardy and irrational.

In conclusion, my opponent doesn't provide enough arguments to warrant the move of reducing the size of drink cartons. Obesity is linked more to a person's habits than anything else because a person who craves for fattening food would, in the end, find excuses, or other means to have what he wants because he is fueled by his inner desires to have it. Probably a permanent ban might be a little more effective but there is no evident reason for one to believe that reduced drink cartons would contribute to reducing or controlling obesity.
Debate Round No. 1
E.MacLeod

Pro

Thank you Sashil.
First, I must say that yes, a person may buy more drinks if they came in smaller cartons, but I want to make it clear that my proposal was to help with the situation, not necessarily prevent or stop it altogether. What a person consumes is entirely their own responsability, and it is their choice if they should want to abuse and/or overconsume food or drink products even if there are consequences.
Also, Sashil claimed that the scenario of a person wanting to drink the entire contents of a large carton because they would not want to waste it would be unrealistic, and that such a person could preserve the drink by storing it in a refrigerator. I myself will in most cases only drink soft drinks when out and about or at a party/cafe, and in such a case a refrigerator would most likely be unavailable, so a person may want to drink the entire contents of the drink carton to stop it going to waste, especially if that person had payed for the drink.
If soft drinks were sold in smaller cartons, a person would get a taste of the drink they wanted, but not feel forced to consume too much.
As you said, Sashil, a person may still buy several small cartons instead of buying a larger one, but that is his/her own choice, and in this debate I am referring to people who do not desire to overconsume a soft drink which could be easily done in the scenario mentioned above, and therefore consume more sugar than is healthy for him/her to cusume.

So to that concludes this part of my argument, I only wanted to put straight a few things that you seemed to have misundersood.
Sashil

Con

Thank you PRO
I would like to begin this round by clarifying that I've not misunderstood anything.

The debate resolution is 'Should sugary drinks be reduced in size'. So in order to win this debate PRO needs to show not only that the reduction in size consequents in some positive benifits for the society but should also prove that these benifits are strong enought to warrant a change in the current norm.
I've firmly established that this is not the case by the following arguments in round 1:

1) We cannot know for sure if the move would deter people from having these sugary drinks as they could eaily buy several of these said reduced size cartons and consume it.

2) There is absolutely no reason at all for a person to have to drink the entire contents of a large carton drink. He could just store it in a refrigerator or shelf it after he has had his fill.
-PRO counters this by saying that there is no provision for storing drinks when the said person is in parties. But drinks from parties wouldn't be significant enough to make a person obese. Furthermore, the person could simply just refuse the drink if he finds it to be more than what he can drink. Again it is upto the person and the blame shouldnt be levied on the size of the carton.-


3) There are several other ways by which a person can become obese. If sugar consumption was the problem the person could have sweets, toffees, cakes or any of the countless other sweet dishes for that matter. PRO hasn't shown the level of impact sugary drinks have in making a person obese.

So in conclusion I would like to state that sugary drinks need not be reduced in size as the move would have little to no impact in getting the desired results.


*takes a bow*


I leave the stage to PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
E.MacLeod

Pro

OK, First of all I want to ask every reader to THINK! It is quite clear and obvious, if Sugary drink cans were reduced in size, it would quite obviously make a difference, it is not convenient for people to buy more than one drink can at a time (unless they are shrink wrapped as 6 packs etc. but we are not talking about such a case, we are talking about somebody buying an individual drink can at the local shop.)
If individual drink cartons were reduced in size, people would just have to accept it. If somebody wants to buy a drink, they will- no matter what size of carton it comes in. It is not convenient for a person to buy a pile of smaller drink cans and walk around the city with a stack of cans, if somebody wants to drink fizzy juice or an energy drink, they can still do so, but they will have to accept the fact that the drink comes in a smaller carton and drink it, and be satisfied.

Now let's move onto the second point. There is every reason for a person to drink the entire contents of a carton, it is polite to do so if it is given to them by a friend (for example). Also if a person only drinks soft drinks when at a party, they could easily get overweight - a person could quite easily go to a party every day!!!
-Con tells us that he thinks a person could 'simply just refuse the drink if he finds it to be more than what he can drink' but what if the person is desperate for a taste of this particular soft drink??? He/She would feel obliged if they had started the drink to finish it. (AND if that same person was at a party, they would most likely not have access to the refrigerator to save the drink for later.)

OK, so it IS a person's own choice as to what he or she wants to eat or drink, and that person has to have self control if they want to stay fit. And yes, a person could also have sweets, toffees, or cakes as well as a soft drink, so it is up to the person whether he or she would want to over-eat and become obese, diabetic, etc.
As I mentioned in one of my last arguments, reducing the size of sugary drink cartons may not altogether stop the problem of people becoming obese, but I think it could quite easily help the problem, Drink cartons nowadays are MASSIVE and people quite often do feel obliged to consume the whole contents of a carton, especially if he or she is out and about so that there is no more waste or litter than there needs to be.
So in conclusion, I think that reducing the size of sugary drink cartons could easily make a change, even if it is only a small change, it all adds up in the end of the day.

Thank you for your debates so far Sashil, it's been great debating with you. Please note that this was my very first debate.
Sashil

Con


The fundamental question to be asked here is, would the move to reduce drink carton size be beneficial enough to justify taking the trouble to go for it? This was the question my opponent had to answer to fulfil his burden of proof in this debate.


PRO has failed to show this because:


i)He never showed how much of an impact sugar drinks have in making people obese.


ii) He has left it to assumption to infer that reducing drink carton size would deter people from having sugary drinks. And no solid proof has been given whatsoever.


PRO states that it IS a person's own choice as to what he or she wants to eat or drink, and that person has to have self-control if they want to stay fit


This should be viewed as a concession on his part as he indirectly contradicts himself i.e, what we consume is impacted by our desires and not the food itself.


Nevertheless as CON in this debate I had to only make PRO’s arguments that were pushing for a change in the current norm unsound. I believe I’ve done more than that so I urge voters to vote CON.


Thank you.


Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
@lord_megatron

Research isn't difficult once you know what you're looking for.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
I support pro on sources. I know how hard is research, and that undertaking such a big task just for a small pastime debate is unappealing.
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
@E.MacLeod

Read the RFDs.
Posted by E.MacLeod 1 year ago
E.MacLeod
Come on guys! Vote Pro for goodness sake! Why vote for the guy who has spent his entire life doing debates???
Posted by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
=================RFD================
Primarily, I must congratulate PRO for he has taken an appreciable amount of effort in articulating his case. But I should encourage him to use more sources to support his arguments in future debates since claims like him saying that the tendency of people to have drinks would decrease when size is reduced is just his opinion as far as the debate is concerned and such statements should always be backed with sources that actually show evidences for the claim. Anyhow PRO is arguing for a change in the current norm and he had to show that enforcing the resolution would actually on a balance be beneficial. I felt CON disallowed PRO from doing the same and hence award the arguments point to CON. Tie on all the others.

Hit me up if you have any queries or qualms :)
I wish Good Luck to both the contestants.
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
Sorry, I meant "Americans" not "Americans' ".
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
RFD

This was an extremely tight debate, so firstly, well done to both sides, particularly Pro since it is his/her first debate.

I thought that Pro could have expanded a bit more on his/her points and perhaps used some sources to support his/her otherwise pretty decent arguments. For example, Pro could have mentioned something like 40.4% of American women are obese compared to 23.9% of German women[1]- this could be because Americans' have larger portions of etc. & etc. Also, Pro needs to be more cautious because (s)he really did contradict him/herself in the end (Round 3, pointed out by Sashil).

Con managed to rebut all of Pro's points and provided good arguments and suggestions ("He could just store it in a refrigerator..."). However, there were some occasional holes, for example "what if a given person bought several of these said 'reduced size' cartons instead of buying a larger one?" Con failed to consider prices as well as connecting this to a real life situation. I always find that I would rather buy one drink than a few smaller drinks together. Con had minor spelling errors but were not so bad as to deduct a mark.

In conclusion, although I agree with Pro, I was slightly disappointed with the way Pro presented his/her points and how easily they were refuted by Con. Therefore, Con gets my vote in this debate.

[1] http://www.worldobesity.org...
Posted by Sashil 1 year ago
Sashil
the irony :P
Posted by Sashil 1 year ago
Sashil
lol :P
Posted by E.MacLeod 1 year ago
E.MacLeod
Oops, Yes Arguments
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
E.MacLeodSashilTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
E.MacLeodSashilTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
E.MacLeodSashilTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that people would want to finish their paid drinks and not waste it. Con rebutted that the drink could be turned down or stored in the refrigerator. Pro argued that most often at restaurants/cafes there's no access to refrigerators, and that people may be desperate for a small taste but not want to drink the entire carton. Con argued that there are other sources of sugar and its a person's own choice as to the amount of drinking, but pro's point about finishing the carton still stands. P.S. I can relate!