This house would ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks
Diabetes may seem not much of a deal but it is actually a serious matter. Diabetes can result in other life-threatening diseases. According to U.S. News, even one soda per day can strengthen a risk of diseases. People who drank one sugar-sweetened drink per day had 20% higher rate of metabolic syndrome. Also, the sugar most soda companies use increases insulin levels and causes high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, premature aging and many other side effects.
My second argument is that harmful ingredients may affect you negatively. The soft-drink, itself, will lead to life-threatening diseases. However, the ingredients in soft-drinks can make things worse. An ingredient in some sodas called brominated vegetable oil, or commonly known as BVO, is an industrial chemical used as a flame retardant in plastics. This chemical had been known to cause memory loss and nerve disorders when consumed in large quantities. BVO builds up in body fat, causing behavioral problems, infertility, and lesions on heart muscles over time. Another harmful ingredient named 4-Mel (4-methylimidazole) is in most sodas such as Pepsi. This chemical is known to cause infertility, thyroid dysfunction and liver and lung cancer. Another ingredient called the Phosphoric acids affect the body"s ability to absorb calcium and can soften bones, teeth, and cause osteoporosis. These ingredients are only few of many. These ingredients can already put you in harmful health issues. And most soft-drinks contain much more harmful ingredients. Imagine what will happen to you. The result will be unpleasant and nasty.
My third argument is that soft drinks are bad for the environment some people might say that whether or not drinking large-sized soft-drinks is individual"s choice. However, drinking large-size soft-drinks can actually harm the environment as well. Harming the environment means affecting everyone who lives on planet Earth. Aside from the fact that the plastic and aluminum used to create bottles of Coca-Cola are bad, the aspartame contaminates drinking water. The aspartame cannot be removed by current sewage treatment plants. Lots of energy is also spent on refrigerating and creating soft drinks. If there were no large-sized soft drinks, less money and fuel would be spent on soft drinks. Plastic cans, aluminum cans, and glass bottles all use energy that could be directed elsewhere. Yes. The glass containers are infinitely recyclable. However, unfortunately, US consumers only recycle about a quarter of them. So where do other 75% go? They become decomposed and harm our environment. Diet Coca-Cola"s recycled PET plastic cans use 75% fossil-fuel based plastic. Drinking large-size soft-drinks will eventually harm everyone, including your love ones, if you look at it long term.
My fourth argument is that banning the large-size soft-drinks will help obesity rates shrink. In modern day USA, obesity is skyrocketing. USA is known for high rates of obesity. Currently, 2 out of 3 adults, and 1 out of 3 children are obese in the U.S. We can't boost this rate up by selling large-sized soft-drinks. A typical 20-ounce soda contains more than 15 teaspoons of sugar and more than 240 calories . A 64-ounce fountain cola drink could have more than 700 calories. As you can see, soft-drinks deal with abundant amount of sugar and calories. If we don't ban large-size soft-drinks, it will motivate US citizens to consume more soft-drinks, adding jetpack to the skyrocketing obesity rate. People who drink this often don"t compensate with exercise for all of the calories that they have consumed. A study found that for each additional 12-ounce soda children consumed every day, the odds of becoming obese increased by 60% during 1.5 years. By banning the large-size soft-drinks, we will be able to at least inform the consumers how unhealthy and life-risking drinking large-size soft-drinks can be.
Thank you. Please vote for proposition.
My first argument is that by the moral theory Hedonism, people should maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Therefore, government do not have a moral obligation to-- in fact they shouldn't-- limit the public’s consumption of unhealthy foods and drinks.
R: People who consume unhealthy food consume it because they enjoy it and the food gives them pleasure. Since different people have different ways of having pleasure, the government should not restrict some people’s form of pleasure-- unhealthy food, even though prop may say that the feeling of being healthy is a better form of pleasure than having unhealthy food. In fact, that is taking away one pleasure everyone wants to enjoy: the ability to choose.
My second argument is that restricting what we can or cannot eat will inhibit our freedom of choice and violate the first amendment. Thus, instead of being viewed as saviors, as my opponent claimed, government will be viewed as tyrants. Controlling the public’s rights to drink what they please is taking away the happiness and freedom of choice.When Michael Bloomberg banned large sodas, there were mass protests throughout NYC. People held citywide protests that disrupted the natural
My third argument is that not banning these sodas will cause too many diseases. The American Heart Association's Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention annual conference in San Francisco. This new research reveals that over the last decade, soda consumption has conservatively caused:
130,000 new cases of diabetes
14,000 new cases of heart disease
50,000 more "life years" with heart disease over the last decade
Now, I would like to move on to refuting. My opponent's first argument states that the government shouldn't restrict some people's pleasure. Is killing yourself a pleasure? Sure you might feel comfortable and joyful that instant, but it's government's obligation - duty - to alert us and motivate us to do the right thing. Again, as I said in my previous argument, drinking large-size soft-drinks can actually harm each and everyone of us. Drinking large-size soft-drinks can affect the environment in a negative way and eventually harm us - either indirectly or directly. The government should take part in something the whole US citizens could be harmed.
My opponent's second argument is that restricting will inhibit our freedom of choice. The government has a right to act accordingly if we are planning to kill ourselves. It might sound ironic that you might be killed by drinking large-size soft-drinks but continuous consumption of this beverage will result in unpleasant and nasty diseases. Again, government is allowed to help us with our choice. The police force try to save us when we are about to jump off the bridge. This applies to government. The government is trying to help us, not take away our freedom. By saying that government is trying to take away people's freedom, my opponent misunderstood the purpose of the large-size soft-drink ban.
My opponent's third argument is that not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. This argument is helping my side. He is saying that not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. I will accept his argument. Yes. Not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. Thank you opposition for supporting my side and actually giving strong evidence to support my side.
Lastly, I would like to make one more argument of my own. My argument is that although sad, most American"s don"t have the self-control to be allowed to make free choices about what they eat. This is what I was saying the whole time. People need government's supervision. About 60% of people who drink soft-drinks can't restrict themselves from developing serious diseases and obesity. Of course, some of this might be accountable for people with diseases or medical disorders that aren't their fault, but that"s only a small portion of the 60%. That"s 6 out of 10 people; if those 6 people COULD control themselves, they probably would have already, and they wouldn"t BE obese in the first place.
Thank you and please vote for proposition.
joebob4547 forfeited this round.
Debater-0122 forfeited this round.