Soda from a fountain is better than canned soda.
Debate Rounds (4)
Over the next two weeks I drank much more soda than any one human should ever possibly drink, and in that time came to a conclusion that I continue to be resolved in: that soda from a fountain is better than canned soda. My arguments are as follows.
Fountain soda is fresher
Let's talk about how soda is made for just a moment; It's just carbonated water and flavoring syrup. Whether it's made in a factory or in the lobby of a restaurant, it's the same stuff. so knowing that we then realize that when you're drinking soda from a can, it's been that way for a while. The soda has been canned, shipped, left in a warehouse, sat on the shelf in a store and whenever you finally get around to it consumed by you. By that point the drink may already be weeks if not even months old! The syrup will have began to settle by this point and the carbonation will have lost much of it's flavor. This leads to you drinking nothing more than a nasty, syrupy.
Fountain drinks on the other hand are made and used up in a single day. So not only is the soda fresher, but it's also going to be much more bubbly. I mean who doesn't love to take a drink of soda fresh from a fountain dispenser? The bubbles pop up into your mouth and nose and it tastes awesome.
However we see further that freshness isn't the only benefit to soda from a fountain, as
Fountain Soda is cheaper
The average can of coke contains about 12 fl oz, whereas the average fountain drink can be anywhere between 16 and 62 fl oz (yeah, I know. It's a lot). But the volume of these drinks isn't the point of my argument here, but it does play a role that we'll get to in just a minute.
Stores can getaway with selling fountain drinks so cheaply because they're cheap to produce. a 5 gallon box of syrup of syrup only costs 40 dollars, which breaks down to about 13 cents per glass of soda -- so when you when you see a truck stop selling a 36 oz fountain drink for a dollar, it's because they can afford to sell coke that way and still cut a huge profit.
What this means for you, is that you benefit from this as well. While you might pay anywhere between 1 and 3 dollar for a 12oz can of coke, you can also pay that same amount for a 16 to 62oz coke instead. But if you think that's nice, just remember how many place offer free refills, or even refills at a very small price. You quickly realize how much money you save from buying fountain drinks instead of canned drinks.
At that, I hand it back over to my opponent!
Fountain soda is fresher
First, while it might seem "more fresh" it is like you said the same stuff no matter what way you do it. Name brands like Coke and Dr Pepper etc., will not sit in warehouses very long. If that were the case then virtually ever soda you drink would be "weeks or months old" and everyone would be drinking "nasty syrup" if that many people were drinking bad soda then I think we would be hearing about it. As soon as the canned is sealed it is virtually "stuck in time". Assuming a true seal. The problem arises when the sugars begin to break down, but that is, (depending who you are talking to) months, up to one year after the expiration date. I am going to assume we are arguing if I went out and bought a can of Dr. pepper right now and compared it to the fountain. You are only kidding your self if you don't think those bags of sugar don't sit in the back of fast food restaurants. Stores order them in bulk and they switch them when they run out.
As far as soda "being fresh" is kind of like saying "fresh sugar" or "fresh citric acid" when, like I said before, unless it is really really old, does not really matter. I would agree that the fountain does has more carbon dioxide and more bubbles that's the only difference.
The biggest disadvantage of buying soda by the fountain is the inconvenient as opposed to buying can or bottle. Especially as someone as yourself who drinks it so often.
I did all the research I could as far for disprove pricing (even got the prices from Dr. pepper for bulk ordering) and its still cheaper to pay 99 cents for a 64 ounce. While that is a good deal I couldn't ever imagine drinking that much haha!
1. I will point out the flaws in his approach
2. I will respond to my opponent's clash
3. I will provide some early voters
Right from the batting box we can see that my opponent has chosen to simply refute my arguments, not provide any of his own; what this means is that my opponent has chosen to argue 'balance'. Basically he's urging a vote for the con by attempting to show that the two items in the resolution are equal. Or at least that's what usually happens when you see someone choosing to argue balance in a given resolution; my opponent has failed to do that here.
The resolution states that 'Soda from a fountain is better than canned soda', indicating that I want to argue about which kind of soda is better -- con doesn't meet this burden. instead he's just arguing that both are bad so you should vote for him. This is nasty ploy and it kills any hope of having the discussion I wanted to have. Sure soda can be unhealthy, but that's not the point of this debate -- it's about which kind of soda is better. Things can have different levels of quality even if they're bad for you. A perfect example would be red meat; it's bad for you, but that doesn't mean that rib-eye isn't better than ground chuck.
The impact here is that Con has failed to meet his burden of clash and should lose on that merit alone.
a. My opponent's arguments here are completely unwarranted. He claims that these sodas will not sit in a warehouse for long, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that. There isn't a soda bottling plant on every block in the US, so unless you live down the street from a Dr. Pepper plant it's going to take a while for you to get your drinks.
Further many establishments order their drinks in bulk and keep them on hand to stock their shelves as they need to to. These sodas can sit in the back of a store for weeks before they get put on the shelf, and then they're going to stay there until someone buys them.
b. My opponent commits several fallacies in his refutation: first he makes an appeal to ignorance by claiming that if this was really such a problem we'd be hearing about it. That alone should discredits his arguments, but I'm going to go further as I'm afraid my opponent has missed the point here entirely -- it's not an issue of the soda going out of date and being bad, it's got a pretty decent life-span since it has indeed been canned. The issue is how fresh the soda is going to be when the consumer gets the chance to drink it. Having sat been in a can and stored gives the soda time to go flat, and for the ingredients to settle. That makes the soda not taste as good as if it were fresh from the tap.
c. Make a direct extension here from from my prior argument concerning my opponent's inappropriate tactics. He can't just say that both kinds of soda are bad so he should win, he's got to either show balance, or that canned soda is better. When he says that freshness doesn't matter he completely ignores my argument which both disrespectful as well as poor form in terms of argumentation. Further he even admits that soda from the tap is fresher since the carbon dioxide has had less to leave the drink, effectively making it flat.
Complete and utter drop on behalf of my opponent. He admits soda from a fountain is cheaper.
a. My opponent has committed logical fallacies in his address of my first argument.
b. My opponent has skewed the intention of this debate by failing to fulfill his burden of clash.
c. My opponent has outright dropped several of my arguments.
1. The title is ambiguous with using "better" and not saying better in what way.
2. He never explained what was required of his opponent.
All that was required of myself, was to simply disprove his claim in a that soda from a fountain is better. By showing that the two are equal, I am disproving that "fountain is better", very simply. Had this been laid out in the introduction, I might have argued that cans were not only equal but better, again it was never made clear.
The problem here is that Pro failed from the start to explain anything, then become distraught when his opponent argued their point, as if I were suppose to know what type of debate he was hoping for. This also should count as a lose.
Pro is making false claims that cans sit around in warehouse for weeks and months when he realistically does not know. This in its self should also be considered as a lose as there is no truth in it. There is no reason to live near soda manufactures to get fresh cans of soda as these company's have what we refer to as distributors.
I never said both were bad nor did I say fountain was more fresh. I had stated that it has more carbon dioxide, which to your personal accounts (which is what pro seems to only have in his arguments) might seem "more fresh" when its really just more water.
My opponent also criticized me for bringing up the health issue, which was only one or maybe two sentences, yet if you look at his round 2 posting, he wrote an entire paragraph about price. Of which I can only assume was filler for the round, as again, there was no indication as to arguing about price. He then says I "completely and utterly" dropped it, due to my agreeing with him. Was I suppose to make up numbers and disagree with his claim?
My argument summed up.
1. With the proper canning process, soda from a can is equal to that of a fountain soda.
2. Soda does not sit in warehouse for extended amounts of time.
3. "There are 1.7 billion servings of Coca-Cola sold every day, according to our 2010 annual report", this comes from Coca-Cola themselves, if a company is producing this much soda, I guarantee they are not sitting in warehouses for weeks on end, just doesn't make sense.
4.Another good point is that there is a mix recipe that is supposed to be used, that was created by the vendors. But of course managers tend to not check the Fountains to verify, or tend to adjust because the water taster overpowers the soda. Keep in mind that water used in Fountains is filtered by a Carbon filter that may not of been changed in the past 12 months, or the fountain has not been cleaned in just as long. Where as the lines where canned & Bottled soda is packaged, cleans the equipment nightly, mixed on site.
Do you want to rely on these fast food managers to make sure the soda you are getting is properly cleaned?
1. Off Case
3. Response to new argument
I started off my last speech by listing inappropriate tactics on behalf of my opponent. While I stand by these violations of debate etiquette, and will cover them more thoroughly in just a moment I'd like to point out that my opponent basically only talked about these issues in his previous speech. He spends a good amount of his character space discussing this issue and so fails cover the actual clash in this debate.
Next my opponent claims that he is indeed arguing balance and so has met his burden -- this isn't the case. My opponent doesn't even begin to argue that both of these things are equal but instead shows that they both have negative qualities so you you shouldn't drink either of them. That doesn't meet the burden of equality, it just shows that soda is bad for you. I still show you explicit benefits to fountain soda that canned soda doesn't have. Extend my red meat analysis here because it really makes my point; just because red meat is bad for you doesn't mean that a rib-eye steak isn't better than ground chuck.
Finally consider that this debate starts with both kinds of soda having a value of zero. After My first constructive I give two examples of soda from a fountain being better, and one drawback of canned soda. this makes the count Fountain: 2, Canned:-1.
My opponent's constructive gives a single argument in refutation of my first point which shows a negative element for both canned and fountain soda. Now the count is Fountain:1, Canned:-2
This isn't balance.
this is a drop. Like I said before my opponent only covered the off-case in his previous round, so both of these on-case argument extend across unrefuted.
This makes the count Fountain:2, Canned:-2. I'm winning by a four point margin.
Not only only does my opponent drop this argument in his first constructive, but here he's trying to claim that I wasted space making this argument in the first place. He writes, "...yet if you look at his round 2 posting, he wrote an entire paragraph about price. Of which I can only assume was filler for the round, as again, there was no indication as to arguing about price."
Let's make one thing really clear here, the fact that I didn't limit round means that there are no limits on the round. When I say 'better' I mean that term to be all-inclusive. Anything you want to argue that shows that one type of soda is qualitatively better or worse than the other would have been acceptable
It would be sufficient for me to just say that this a drop so it flows Pro, however it's more than just that. This argument is an issue of conduct. My opponent blatantly ignores my arguments and then claims that his doing so is reason to vote for him. Do not let this go unnoticed, and teach him that this is inappropriate through the vehicle of your conduct vote.
As for the new argument I'll cover it point-by-point
1. False. It can easily go flat, plus it can have dangerous toxins.
2. Again false. I don't know why my opponent is making these unwarranted claims.
3. My opponent doesn't source this argument, and either way it's not compelling reason to believe that the soda doesn't sit in a warehouse. As I already showed [you, it does sit in both trucks and warehouses before it gets to your hands for consumption.
4. I'm not going to lie, this argument is wholly incomprehensible. It's basically an argument of cleanliness which my opponent neither warrants nor cites. This is the equivalent of my saying that people have claimed to find dead rats in their coke cans (which is incidentally true). At least if something like that happens with a fountain drink you can hol the source responsible
Do not allow my opponent to make new arguments in his final speech that won't be able to respond to.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for admitting defeat. Argument much for the same. Sources were only used by one side.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.