The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should the Government Regulate Soda?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,046 times Debate No: 33727
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




In the last year, the topic of banning soda has become very hot. Michael Bloomberg proposed banning sodas over 16oz or more. My question isn't if Bloomberg was right; my question is if the government should regulate soda at all. Perhaps there is a middle ground between ban and unrestricted purchasing.

Here are the rules.

-First Round Acceptance
-No new arguments in the last round
-Keep it clean, proofread what you write

To make it clear, I will be arguing that soda should be regulated to some degree while my opponent will argue that the government should keep their hands off.

Good luck!


I accept this debate and I hope to look foward to a great well thought out debate and I now await my opponent's opening arguements.
Debate Round No. 1


To begin, let me stress that I'm not going to advocate for a ban on soda, merely regulation or heavy tax on soda. I believe that the regulation of soda is justified because of the following three points:

1. For Health Reasons
It's been proven that soda is linked to diabetes, risk of heart problems, and overweight children (1). Diabetes is a major health issue for many Americans due to the high amount of sugary foods and drinks present in contemporary times. There are about 247 million people around the world with diabetes due to an decrease in physical activity and more sugary diets (2). Heart problems have also increased for the same reasons: lack of physical activity and more sugar in diets. Lastly, children love the sweet drinks like sodas and energy drinks. These children are being exposed to a rapid amount of sugar early in their lives, which hurt the body later in life. I believe that a tax in soda will dissuade children and adults from over consuming these drinks. It's important that the government steps in and taxes these drinks before the health epidemics caused by soda grow out of control (as if they aren't already).

2. Taxing Soda Could Lead To Break Elsewhere
The government needs taxes in order to function, this much is true. We owe trillions of dollars of debt, and it is only a matter of time before the government will start taxing us to make for part of this debt. Regardless of whether we agree with the actions of the government, it is inevitable that they need to take our money from us in some fashion. So why not let the government tax U.S. citizens now and perhaps get a slight break down the line? It is the lesser of two evils. It's better for the government to tax a luxury item such as soda then raising the taxes of Americans a few cents higher. In these times of economic hardship, every penny counts for a middle and lower class income family.

3. A Tax will Lower Obesity
If a tax on soda is established, that bottle of water is going to look more attractive. Fizzy drinks induce hunger, cause additional sugar that the body cannot process to be stored in the body as fat, and can even cause kidney stones (3). When soda induces hunger, not only are we dealing with the calorie bomb drinks, but we are dealing with additional food and the calories that go with it. All of these calories add up. Many weight loss programs such as Weight Watchers constantly point out how soda has no health benefits and ruins diets. With a tax on soda, other alternatives will look more interesting and the negative effects of soda will not harm our nation nearly as much.

All of these arguments could apply to any country as well. Although the second point is mainly directed at the United States, I think any government could benefit from more money off this harmful luxury. I think that although every citizen deserves the freedom to buy and consume what they want, the government has the right to put in natural deterrents such as a tax. A ban might be too much for our society at this point, but a tax or stopping soda from being banned at schools would be a few steps in the right direction while staying within reasonable bounds.



1. Health Reasons

Though soda and sugary foods are link to those things what we need to see that it's all about choices we make. By this I mean if we eat or drink something in moderation. Like I were to eat cake everyday it is very likely that I will get fat and probably develope diabettes, but if I do like what I do now and eat cake only in moderation than it is unlikely that those things will happen. You see that we need to do stuff in moderation and if we do stuff in moderation it is highly unlikely that those health defeats will befall us. only that but people that have addictions to soda then it is highly unlikely that they will change their habbits.

2. Taxing Soda

Doing this won't do a thing because all as it would do is increase consumption of other sugary drinks like Monster and Red Bull. order to fully get the benefit of making people more healthy and getting better tax brakes would be to tax all sugar containing drinks as which you'll read in point 4 that it's unconstitutional.

3. Decreasing obisity

We can see that this is false because Michelle Obama has implamented a plan to make school lunches healthier, but the only thing it did is make the average high school go to McDonalds and hurting their own personal budget.;;(see the video to see my point)

4. Unconstitutional

We have seen before that it has been proven with the court case of New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene were the courts have found that the ban and even the tax on the soda to be unconstitutional. The Judge would then report: " To accept the respondents' interpretation of the authoriy granted to the Board [of Health] by the New York City Charter would leave its authority to define, create, mandate and enforce limited only by its own imagination. . . . The Portion Cap Rule, if upheld, would create an administrative Levianthan and violate the separation of powers doctrine. The Rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it. Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling that sugar sweetened beverages.";
Debate Round No. 2


1. Health Reasons

Although it's nice that to say we should practice moderation, America has proved that it is incapable of controlling itself with the sweet stuff. Over 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese A tax on soda will not guarantee people to change their habits, granted, but it is a start. I couldn't read the scholastic article due to the link not working by the way. Must be a technical problem : )

2. Taxing Soda

I think that energy drinks should be taxed too. If they aren't, people may consume more energy drinks, but I don't think the increase will be that drastic.

3. Decreasing Obesity

I'm sorry, but just because Michelle Obama could not implement the plan to make school lunches healthier does not mean it is not possible. I think that taking sodas out of schools can do enough to make schools much healthier.

4. Unconstitutional

I have to admit, you have me beat here. The best that I can say is that this court case can still be reversed. Keep in mind these finding are not final, anything can change.

I think that soda should be taxed and regulated to help America with our obesity problem. I do admit that it won't fully cure the problem but it will help.


lannan13 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


It's a shame that my opponent could not make an argument in the three days given to him to respond. I will assume that something came up that he had to take care; I hope to see him in the final round. Allow me to reiterate a few points in the meantime:

In regards to his point about how Michelle Obama's program has not been successful, consider how many programs there have been over the years regarding obesity. Some programs will fail due to a wrongful allocation of resources, not enough money, etc. But I think that obesity is a major problem in schools due to these sugary drinks, and these programs at the very least realize this problem.

There has been many court cases that have been overturned years later. I think that the interpretation of the law is always changing. The constitution is like the bible; it can can interpreted in multiple ways. In a few years, who is to say this won't be reversed?

Again, a tax on soda will not solve this problem. Instead, I propose that the tax will move this country's health in the right direction.


I'm sorry that I've been unable to respond. I thought I had a day left.

The reason that you'll be voting for me in today's debate is the fact that I have proven that it is unconsitutional so even if Pro wins the other points the fact still remains that it isn't okay.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Flipbook 4 years ago
Saintmichael, you are seriously against the US constitution. On your argument for The Democrats Constitution debate, explain to me why you hate the constitution so much!!!!!
Posted by Khaos_Mage 4 years ago
What if I wanted to argue that Bloomberg's regulation was A-OK, instead?
No votes have been placed for this debate.