The Instigator
nwells40
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Sitara
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The U.S. government should reduce the corn subsidies it gives to farmers.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 2 votes the winner is...
nwells40
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 38324
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

nwells40

Pro

The US gives massive amounts of subsidies to farmers to grow corn. Corn farmers are now growing way more than before and the excess corn is being turned into additives that we put in our food. Over the last 30 years our country has experienced an obesity problem which is largely due to foods that contain these corn additives. Obesity is a major problem in society today and reducing the amount of corn we produce can greatly limit obesity worldwide, not just in the U.S.
Sitara

Con

I apologize for typos: I took this not to be rude, but to raise the point that proper diet, exercise, and the medical community doing research into making medications that do not cause as much weight gain will go further in fighting obesity. I am overweight because my meds were wrong, but with an adjustment, I have lost weight. I will present my approach by examining each problems and then waitning for your response, pun intended. Ahem: A proper diet can do more than help maintain health. It can save your life. I almost died due to a poor diet, and bad meds. First the diet: too much sugar causes the body to retain water, diabetis, heart problems, and so on. Too little can be a bad thing too. You have to get the right nutrients for you. The right diet for me, may be wrong for you. People need to be taught dietary responsibility. Now excercise: Try to get at least one hour of excercise a day. It can be 30 minutes twice a day, or one straight hour. Proper excercise can keep your muscles strong, lower blood pressure, help mental illnesses, help many medical conditions. Do ask a doctor first if you are out of shape, but excercise will make your life better. Oh, and it helps sleep, and long term, you have more energy. Stick with it. Now meds: Many meds on the market help people so much by managing many illnesses, but they can cause water retention, slow the mentabilism, increase apetite, all of which cause weight gain and make weight loss difficult. I would ditch my Seroquel, but last time I tried that, I had a problem. People cannot always change their meds just to lose weight. The three main causes if attacked will help eliminate the obesity crisis, and in conclusion, I ask that voters and my opponant please excuse my typos, as I am learning disabled and nhave trouble spelling sometimes. I look forward to hearing from you guys, bye.
Debate Round No. 1
nwells40

Pro

You didn't really answer the topic, in fact I would argue you didn't answer it at all. You have yet to give me a solid reason why we shouldn't reduce the corn subsidies we give to farmers. All you did was give us ways to combat obesity. While I respect your story and wish you luck with your health, you didn't answer the prompt.

However, you did say that proper diet can "save your life." I argue that reducing corn subsidies to farmers can lead people to a proper diet. Improper diet is the number 1 cause of obesity. If you do not exercise but eat well, you will not be obese. I'm not saying you will be healthy, but you will not be obese.

You said "too much sugar causes the body to retain water, diabetes, heart problems, and so on." Excess corn is turned into artificial sugar (high fructose corn syrup) which is harder for the body to break down than cane sugar. Go to a supermarket and pick out healthy foods and unhealthy foods: the difference is the unhealthy foods will contain high fructose corn syrup.

Yes, diet and exercise will reverse the growing obesity epidemic. However, reducing corn subsidies will greatly reduce the amount of foods that have the ability to cause a poor diet. I urge the voters to vote pro for these reasons.

PS - don't apologize for typos. It's not necessary
Sitara

Con

Okay, I will switch up my approach. Pro says: You didn't really answer the topic, in fact I would argue you didn't answer it at all. You have yet to give me a solid reason why we shouldn't reduce the corn subsidies we give to farmers. All you did was give us ways to combat obesity. While I respect your story and wish you luck with your health, you didn't answer the prompt.
I say: Aur contraire, mon her, I stated three reasons that are more likeley to cause obesity than corn subsities. Saying that corn makes people fat is like saying that spoons make people fat. The slippery slope fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com....
Pro says: However, you did say that proper diet can "save your life." I argue that reducing corn subsidies to farmers can lead people to a proper diet. Improper diet is the number 1 cause of obesity. If you do not exercise but eat well, you will not be obese. I'm not saying you will be healthy, but you will not be obese.
I say: funding nutrician and fitness programs will go a lot further. The corn subsities are meant to support local businesses, as many farmers are having financial problems. Farmers work hard, especially where I come from (go PA), so they deserve a break. Why I forgot to bring this up, IDK. But there it is, another reason.
Pro says: You said "too much sugar causes the body to retain water, diabetes, heart problems, and so on." Excess corn is turned into artificial sugar (high fructose corn syrup) which is harder for the body to break down than cane sugar. Go to a supermarket and pick out healthy foods and unhealthy foods: the difference is the unhealthy foods will contain high fructose corn syrup.
I say: then subsidise farms in general to support the workers that produce our food, and we shall have an agreement.
Pro says: PS - don't apologize for typos. It's not necessary
I say: I was trying to show respect.
Debate Round No. 2
nwells40

Pro

nwells40 forfeited this round.
Sitara

Con

Sitara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
nwells40

Pro

nwells40 forfeited this round.
Sitara

Con

Sitara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
I was sick anyway. Let's do a do over. You can send me the debate.
Posted by nwells40 3 years ago
nwells40
sorry about missing my deadline I actually completely forgot. it won't happen again. If you want to post in round 3 go ahead and I will respond in round 4. I still have some points I want to address and Im not ready to forfeit this debate. thank you and good luck
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
I wish pro luck. I feel that we both have valid concerns and would concede to a moderate position between our views.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
nwells40SitaraTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Con's initial speech was not topical, making it hard to evaluate her second speech's arguments. Moreover, Con's advocacy is just a permutation of Pro's--i.e. Pro is not arguing that reducing subsidies is the best way to reduce obesity, so, under Pro's world, he can still do other things to combat obesity. Basically, Pro can do everything Con suggests and still lessen the subsidies. So, Con's counterplans are really just a string on non-unique arguments that don't actually negate the topic. I needed to hear from Con a reason either why corn has nothing to do with obesity, or why other harms of reducing subsidies outweighed the obesity concerns. But since Con never disputed the thesis of Pro (Con only contended that there were more effective ways to reduce obesity, not that corn did not impact obesity) and never gave me a disadvantage to affirming, I'm left with little unique Con offense. Thus, I go Pro.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
nwells40SitaraTied
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: Pro had the burden of proof and didn't make a case. He provided no evidence that subsidies were excessive or in fact that there were any subsidies at all. He proved no evidence that subsidies caused health problems. Con's case did serve to point out that personal choice was more likely the cause of health problems than corn subsidies. I didn't have a problem following what Con was saying, though arguments from personal experience don't obviously treat generalities. Pro loses argument for failure to meet the burden of proof; he just gave an opinion and that would have failed if Con had said nothing. Conduct penalties for forfeiting cancel.