The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Sweatingjojo
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

The United States government or governments (federal, state or otherwise) should not ban trans fats.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,856 times Debate No: 5642
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

libertarian

Pro

1. Yes. Trans fats are unhealthy. But we live in a free society. We should be able to live and choose what foods we eat even if they are fatty. "No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
http://www.libertarianquotes.com...

2. Trans fats are awesome!!! They make foods delicious. http://www.joeyheadset.com...

3. The natural rights listed in our preamble include liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is un-American and immoral for the government to restrict these rights.

4. Trans fats hurt nobody except the person eating them. It is the person's right to eat whatever they want to eat. And it is not the government's right to stop him.

5. We must fight hard for every single liberty we have. Cambodia, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany all prove this. It is rare when enormous rights are taken away instantly. For example, in Nazi Germany, Jews were forced to wear a gold star and they were cool with that. Then, Jews had to register as such. Hitler, eventually, suspeneded the constitution. And finally, there were concentration camps. When the Jews saw the trucks taking them away, they did not fight, because they were used to the destruction and ignoring of rights and th German citizens accepted it only because it was gradual. This will happen in America if we allow it. It is not unreasonable to believe that if we allow them to take away trans fats, they will take away the next food, and the next right, and the next right, until we are finally stripped of all human rights.
Protect our human rights! History tells us to fight against every violation of rights!
Sweatingjojo

Con

Thanks for making this debate, it should be fun.
His case, then mine.

1. Trans fats are very unhealthy, more on that later. We do not live in a free society, that wouldn't work at all.

" We should be able to live and choose what foods we eat even if they are fatty."

This implies that some foods require trans fat in their making, this is false, trans fatty acids can be completely replaced by other, less harmful ingredients in everything.

You then quote a Mr. Edmund A Opitz. He was by no means a Constitutional expert, he was a Christian economic libertarian. http://www.fee.org... Basically, his opinion doesn't hold much if any weight as evidence.

To counter this quote, I provide one by Oliver Ellsworth, a writer of the Constitution, and the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I think his opinion on this matter is certainly more valuable than Mr. Opitz's.
"A government capable of controling the whole, and bringing its force to a point, is one of the prerequisites for national liberty."- Landholder no 3. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...

"2. Trans fats are awesome!!! They make foods delicious. http://www.joeyheadset.com...;

Trans fats kill people!!! They can be replaced by anything else, resulting in the exact same taste. You quote a random blogger who has no credentials, his opinion is worthless.

"3. The natural rights listed in our preamble include liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is un-American and immoral for the government to restrict these rights."

Yeah, the government is protecting our liberty and happiness by keeping us from contracting coronary heart disease, and other not so fun things!
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

4. The consumption of trans fats places a burden on our nation's medical system. The FDA's new requirement of labeling trans fats in food has saved 250 to 500 lives a year, that would have been lost to things like heart disease.

5. You clearly have little to no understanding of the concept of a government. A government is designed to govern, hence the name. Without a government, we would have unlimited liberty and rights, but at the same time, we would be threatened by other people and things. Thats why we establish government, we give up some of our rights, but for our own protection and well-being. Banning trans-fats is a prime example of this, we give up our right to eat trans fats, which in turn protects us from un-necessary illness and suffering. This is especially just when one realizes that trans-fats can be replaced with less dangerous ingredients at no difference to the trans fat version.
You then go on to compare protecting citizens from heart-attacks to Hitler. This is fallacious, and as shown before, invalid.

MY CASE
============================================================================

I've already touched on these points before, but just to review.

1. Trans fats are extremely harmful, they have been shown to lead to Coronary Heart Disease, Alzheimer's, Cancer, Diabetes, Obesity, Liver disfunction, and infertility. A just government should work to prevent people from being harmed to an extreme, therefore banning trans fats is a good idea. [I'm saving space, evidence will be provided upon request]

2. Trans fats can be substituted with other ingredients, leading to the same taste and texture. Just take a look at KFC, which switched from partially hydrogenated soybean oil, to low lineolic soybean oil. There are alternatives, and so they should be pursued.

Yeah thats basically it for my side, they're bad for you, and they can be replaced. I think its good enough.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

1. The fact remains: the Constitution restrcits the government 24 times with the word "not." The founding fathers would have opposed a ban on trans fats, because they opposed big government restricting liberties. Also, your quote doesn't even make sense! Liberty is the exact opposite of incredible government control! It is your burden to prove that the Constitution did not often restrict government power and/ or that the foundi
2. A) It is true that trans fats are unhealthy. But so is alcohol, tabacco, and donuts. The government cannot ban all unhealthy or dangerous things. This would lead to a world without cars, to prevent accidents, without ceiling fans, to prevent accidental dings on the head, and without sharp desk corners, to stop us from cutting or hurting ourselves. It is not the job of government to ban all unhealthy or dangerous things. In fact, the founding fathers would have directly opposed it. People are smart enough to make decisions for themselves. Governent should NOT barge into our lives by telling us what we can and cannot eat.
B) The American Heart Association agrees that trans fats are cheap and taste "desiarably." (http://www.americanheart.org...)

3. The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is evident that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are very important, When writing this, Thomas Jefferson goes on to say that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their ng fathers despised liberty. Of course, though, liberty is a basic American value and is remarkably important.
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Jefferson would oppose these trans fats bans on the basis that despotic government is taking away our natural rights to liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.

4. Desk corners, football, and alarm clocks hinder our nation's medical health. Plenty of things hinder our medical health and many things will in any free nation. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights endowed by our Creator. Government protecting us from the bad things in the world is not. National liberty outweighs national medical health.

5. A) You clearly have no understanding of government. It's job is to protect us from things that take away our rights, like murderers or frauds. Government cannot be expected to protect us from all bad things and choices. If the government had that job, it would ban us from debating, because we might get offended. It would ban us from giong to certain parts of town. It would ban us from driving. It would ban us from any tables that were not rounded. Government can only protect us from things that other people do to us. It is unreasonable for the government to make choices for us. Especially, the simple choice of which foods to eat. The government is not our mother! It cannot tell us to eat our brocoli and brussel sprouts! As free persons we should be allowed to eat whatever we wish!
B) You cannot simply explain why relating Hitler to loss of freedom is a fallacy. Instead you must show whih fallacy it is and explain why. Or else, I could just state all your arguments are a fallacy. Cambodia is another example. Pol Pot tried to create the perfect utopia. Eventually, people started to make bad choices so he had them fined, eventually jailed, then finally killed. Thousands died in the Cambodian genocide, because they allowed their rights and liberties to be taken away. We must not be so foolish as to ignore history. We should learn from our history!
++++++++++++
1. A good government would be like that of Soviet Russia, Cambodia, or Nazi Germany. A good government would not be despotic and try to protect its citizens from everything. A good government would protect its citizens from other people taking away their rights, instead of dangerous things and bad choices.

2. The American Heart Association says that trans fats taste good, are cheap, and have a desirable texture. (http://www.americanheart.org...) If a person wants to not eat the trans fats, they can make this decision. Foods with trans fats, ilke donuts and cakes, are easy to spot. And if they aren't easy enough for you, the nutrition facts explain to you how much trans fat is in the food you are eating. (http://www.americanheart.org...) Americans are smart enough to make decisions for themselves.
Sweatingjojo

Con

1. The limits that the Constitution places on the government in other areas has no bearing on the justness of the government banning a dangerous substance from being consumed. The idea that because 24 times the word "not" is used means that trans fats shouldn't be banned is the most absurd thing since Antonin Scalia.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 grants Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the nation. This is an enumerated power! Keeping people healthy is right there! In the Constitution! Your argument has nothing to stand on!

With regards to my quote, Chief Justice Ellsworth was one who understood that obviously that without the government having some level of power over the people, no one will be free. No one can be free if everyone is dying from trans fat. Banning trans fats actually protect liberty.

It seems you got cut off there, but it seems you were about to say something nonsensical. All I have to do is show that the United States government, at some jurisdictional level, can ban trans fats.

2 A. Obviously you'd rather argue to absurdity, instead of realize the specific threat that trans fats are. They kill people, and they can be replaced. Obviously no one can be protected from everything, but it would be silly to not minimize unneeded risk. That is what trans fats represent; Risk that doesn't need to be there, but is for no reason.

B. Sure they taste good, but so do the less harmful things that replace them.

3. Lets see, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These three things are all difficult to maintain when one is six feet under, and dead of coronary heart disease (or any of the other illnesses that I mentioned related to Trans fats.)

My opponent then goes on to claim that anything that the government does to protect its citizens is despotic. I suppose that all governments should dissolve then. I'm not sure why Thomas Jefferson would have written the declaration of Independence if he believed this, because he would then be morally obligated to immediately order the dissolution of all of the colonies' governments. This did not happen, because that would be crazier than Clarence Thomas.

Liberty is protected by ensuring that there are people able to enjoy it, and happiness is also obviously protected, because it saves lives, living being a key component to being happy.

4. You still seem to think that total, pure liberty is the only thing that matters. Obviously not, as this would lead to a State of nature, as Hobbes described. States of nature suck, because everyone has total liberty, leading to the lives of the people being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." People dying un-necessarily is something that a just government should work to limit, and that is what banning trans fats should do.

5. A. I would think that death is something that takes away our rights, trans fats cause death, therefore it should be the government's duty to prevent it from occurring. Government should be expected to prevent the most egregious of threats to be limited, as trans fat is. My opponent then goes down the slippery slope talking about stuff that I am not.

" Government can only protect us from things that other people do to us. "

So I guess we should close down the Center for Disease Control. And the EPA, and while we're at it, we ought to take down all of the traffic lights. Oh and the roads themselves, we should stop maintaining them, because maintaining them limits peoples options, as it stops those that wanted to drive on decrepit roads. As free people we should be allowed to drive wherever we wish! That last bit is pretty much analogous to your reasoning here, and its sillier than Strom Thurmond.

B. Basically what I'm saying is that just comparing stuff to Hitler doesn't make it wrong or right, as you did. Did you know he was a vegetarian? And he was gay? I think you are gay [according to your profile. I don't mean to offend at all when I say that.] so probably you're a nazi. That's why its rediculous, because you're not a nazi, and the banning of trans-fats isn't a Hitler-like thing to do.

All governments take away rights and liberties, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Its about the excessive removal of rights and liberties, which this certainly is not. It even protects them.

============================================================================
1. Again with the 'bad places' fallacy. A good government works to prevent people from loosing their rights un-necessarily, which is something that trans fat represents. The fact that people control the ingredient mixtures could be extended to mean that a good government would ban trans fat. So even if you win this debate, I win and you loose, because you're argument fits into what I'm trying to do.

2. Trans fats can be replaced by other ingredients, as I've shown. People shouldn't have trans fats put in front of them when there are things that taste, look, smell, and act the same as trans fat, but are less harmful. People didn't even know what trans fats were 5 years ago. It took medical studies to help it enter the public conciousness. And in case you didn't realize, it was the government that ordered the companies list the trans fat in the food. Three years ago, they didn't have to do this. Without this happening, even more people would be dying un-necessarily. However, in restaurants and other locations , the nutritional facts are not present, showing there is still work to be done. Its time to take the next step to ensuring public safety.

Its also good for everyone to remember that for the majority of this debate, we've talked about the National Constitution. If somehow everyone accepts his argument that it is unconstitutional nationally, I still win, because I've shown how trans fat bans are just and ought to be preformed on a state or local level.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

libertarian forfeited this round.
Sweatingjojo

Con

Ah so my opponent unfortunately forfeited his third round.

That sucks.

I suppose I win.

Thanks for the opportunity to debate this topic, libertarian, have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Hey yeah good job voting for yourself when you didn't even post a response.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Should be a question mark at the end of that.... a rhetorical one of course.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
To counter this quote, I provide one by Oliver Ellsworth, a writer of the Constitution, and the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I think his opinion on this matter is certainly more valuable than Mr. Opitz's.
"A government capable of controling the whole, and bringing its force to a point, is one of the prerequisites for national liberty."- Landholder no 3. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...;

You think a blatantly self-contradictory argument is more valuable than... well, any argument really :D
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"But we live in a free society"

Where do YOU live?
Posted by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
ha, i was going to make this debate :<
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"But we live in a free society"

No we don't.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
libertarianSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
libertarianSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
libertarianSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
libertarianSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
libertarianSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
libertarianSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70