The Instigator
Lets-debate-bro
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
18Karl
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Should there be taxes on 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 5 votes the winner is...
18Karl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,378 times Debate No: 63267
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Lets-debate-bro

Pro

I think soda should be taxed to help stop the obesity in this country.
18Karl

Con

Contention One: Civil Liberty

It is commonly affirmed that men have civil liberty to do the following rights; the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There are no governmental incentives, directly or indirectly, to violate these rights unless the following is a conditional; (1) civil liberty on the long term destroys human existence, which has already been addressed through the first contracts, (2) civil liberty of some minority on the oppression of the majority, and (3) civil liberty that an individual uses to harm the individual liberties of others. Note that the conditionals for a “just” violation are all human related, and not related to choice. Liberty is a human concept, and abstract, but when exemplified in the manner of free countries, has always been held dear

If the opposition beliefs that one man’s body is a government’s property, that man does not posses the liberty to will what he wills, that the government should directly or indirectly control this, then the opposition has introduced to us a “slave ideology” that he needs to follow. The master-slave dialectical process starts now, and ends only when the slave exemplifies his master as a normative model of a free and just man. However, the problem with the introduction of the master-slave dialectical process into a government is that there are often two divides that prevent this from coming through; the first being the clearest, the differential types of people, and the second being the most ambiguous, that some people are in their place as either slave or master inherently due to hereditary. The Dalits of Northern India are an example of slave via hereditary, not nature; the hereditary succession of absolute dictatorships are examples of master via hereditary, not nature. The government cannot impose such master-slave dialectics onto a whole country, for that would make some de facto masters into de jure slaves. Since men cannot know whether slavery or mastery is their account, then the freedom of liberty to consume whatever is always present.

Contention Two: Threat of "Black-Market" Goods

As was tried and failed in the Danish State, these schemes, commonly called "Fat Tax" addressed the question, but yet was repealed. This was due to the fact that this would lead to a necessary "brain-drain" of merchants selling Soda and Soft Drinks. For example, the Danish "Fat-Tax" program was met with furious opposition from all those wo fit the condition of making "fat-filled" products. [1] This contention will be reached later. Firstly, in the cost-analysis benefits of such "taxes" there should always be the health-economic counterpart. Imagine the "War on Soda" This is a real possibility if this tax gets emplaced. For there to be a war over some material, there has to be one condition reached only; that is, high demand. 50% of the American public drink some type of Soda everyday. [2] Of course, there are dangers in drinking, but what the people drink, as proven in the Civil Liberty argument, is no governmental issue.

Contention Three: Potential Economic Decline

The Soda Tax will create a potential economic decline; it has been said that the Soda Industry makes 200 billion US$ yearly. Let us put that in context with the world; thats 50 Nimitz Nuclear-Class Aircraft Carriers. This is due to the huge demand of soda in the world; if the United States were to implement a tax on Soda based products, then that would neccessarily lead not only to the compromising of the Civil Liberties that the Constitution held dear, but to the loss and huge/rapid decline of the 200 billion US$ industry. This would also cause rapid unemployment, as shown in the Denmark case [1] and would also create a possible loss of employment for 4.5% of the employed who work directly in the soft drink industry. These losses, combined with the huge importance of the Soda industry in the American public, will inevitably lead to HUGE and UNCONTROLLABLE economic consequences.[3]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[3] http://www.fooddrinktax.eu...

Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
=======================================================================
Max.Wallace. 7 points to Con. Reason for removal: no attempt was made to explain S&G, conduct, and sources votes. Explanation for arguments only expresses the user's personal views; it does not explain why Con had better arguments.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro sounds like the same sort that started the revolution.
=======================================================================

-bluesteel (voting moderator)
Posted by Dheu 2 years ago
Dheu
um.... one round? lol.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Lets-debate-bro18KarlTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's counter-argument dwarves Pro's, despite not directly responding to Pro's. Sources go to Con because they significantly helped Con make his/her case.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
Lets-debate-bro18KarlTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the most unrefuted arguments by the end of the debate. He also used good sources.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Lets-debate-bro18KarlTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con: only one to use sources and with un-refuted arguments
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Lets-debate-bro18KarlTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave evidence and a ton of evidence to negate the resolution.
Vote Placed by Narwhalicorn 2 years ago
Narwhalicorn
Lets-debate-bro18KarlTied
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: Con actually made an argument, rather than a statement.