You choose the topic
Debate Rounds (4)
If all of the topics offered by con are offensive, overly serious, skewed, truistic or otherwise inaccessible, then I'll choose a different topic entirely.
There are no hard line rules, just don't be a dick. I reserve the right to expand on what that means as necessary, but hopefully I won't have to. Just be a decent human being, and let's have a fun round!
Topic: Coffee without sugar is better than coffee with sugar
First is dependency,
Let me start out by saying that I am not arguing that if someone wants to put sugar in their coffee that they are a bad person. This argument does not start from a place of elitism or purism. What I am arguing is that coffee that does not have sugar in it is better than coffee that does have it. I understand that it can take time to get used to drinking coffee black or with only cream, and that sweetener can help one become used to the taste. If you are a fledgling coffee addict, then by all means put a little sugar in your coffee - the issue arises when one continues to sweeten their coffee after years of drinking it. This also leads to the the conflation of coffee with soda and other caffeinated beverages.
As any coffee drinker should know the more one drinks coffee, the more dependent they become on it to start their day. By failing to acknowledge that unsweetened coffee is better than sweetened coffee one will never think to check how dependent they are on the sugar in their drinks.
Next is health,
Sugary beverages are a leading cause of diabetes and obesity the world over. Particularly when one becomes used to the sweetness of their drinks, she or he may not realize how much sugar they are really consuming. By failing to recongize that coffee without sweetener is better than coffee with sweetener, we contribute to these unhealthy habits and promote cardiovascular disease for the next generation. It's not even enough to promote the idea of moderation with with sugary beverages, as it creates the idea things such as candy and soda can be a regular part of a healthy diet. The criticism behind mixify is a good example of this - while there is nothing wrong with indulging in these things periodically, we're fooling ourselves if we think we try to pretend that we can outwork a bad diet.
As an underview, I want to note that this health-centric position of advocacy is by no-means critical of larger-folks, but of the poor habits which contribute to the unnecessary spread of disease. Food is a cultural reality and we shouldn't expect to be able to change deeply ingrained habits overnight. What we can however do, is recognize our bad habits and start change them slowly. These kinds of changes in behaviour should stem from a place of self-love towards our bodies rather than a place of hate or discontent.
One crucial step in promoting healthy lifestyles is to simply admit that coffee without sugar is better than coffee with it. When we do that, we can acquire a taste for black coffee, or coffee with just a bit of creamer and cut out at least of unnecessary source of sugar in our diets.
Flexibility of Taste
Since there is no range of taste, texture or creaminess that one can achieve without sugar that they cant achieve with it, the range suddenly becomes much more significant when we add sugar in.
You can alter the blackness of coffee and creaminess of it without sugar but adding sugar offers near-limitless range (count all grains of sugar as a variable) of taste.
Flexibility of Use
Pro concedes that the addition of sugar already makes coffee with sugar superior at getting people addicted to it and furthermore to harm their health. If you were the maid or housewife to someone you wanted to murder and they weren't diabetic then one of the easiest ways to kill them undetected would be coffee with sugar.
In fact there are so many things of varying potency once can do with the added sugar including:
Regarding the last use (the decay of teeth) black coffee actually stops you being able to do this but the sugar will help cancel out the unwanted strengthening of your annoying teeth (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)(http://healthyteeth.org...).
Combining Caffeine and Sugar Better (Need Less For Same Rush)
Caffeine is a good drug for helping you 'wake up' but comes with many side effects (http://www.healthline.com...) including increased stomach acid and blood pressure. You will get further energy rush per ml if you added sugar because glucose digests differently to caffeine and gives you an energy rush on top of the caffeine which means you can drink less for the same rush. (http://www.livestrong.com...)
The energy rush of sugar is short-lived so you'll still be able to sleep later on but caffeine's isn't as short-lived and makes you feel stressed (sugar energy rush doesn't make you feel stressed). http://www.sarahramsden.com...
Enables Energy Rush Despite Drinking Decaf
Drinking decaffeinated coffee for health reasons? No worries! The sugar will still be there to help you wake up!
Sugar doesn't just add a new taste to coffee, it masks the original taste of the drink. At the point the taste is being actively changed, the taste itself is being changed. Do not give this ground to Con as the addition of sugar makes for a one-to-one trade-off in terms of flavor.
The question them comes to 'which is better', by extending the Pro advocacy we the the net harms of sugary bevrages outweighs any nuances of taste Con could claim.
This argument is clearly satirical. Recognizing the satire and calling it out at face-value is all I have to do to cede any impact Con was hoping to garner from it. In fact, turn this argument and conceptualize all these impacts as reasons on your flow to vote Pro. The promotion of addiction, the masking of date-rape drugs, and tooth decay are all incredibly negative things.
A better rush
At best this argument is a wash. One already concedes coming into the debate that caffeine will be part of the equation in a discussion on coffee. One shouldn't assume that because one would add sugar to their coffee that they would be drinking less of it. By adding sugar Con still accepts all the harms associated with sugary beverages.
Further, on the Sarah Ramsden article, a close reading notes that both caffeine and sugar can cause these effects in different (but similar) ways, so if anything adding sugar to caffeine only makes the health problems worse.
Decaf is a sin, but if you are going to have it there's probably a reason for that. Adding sugar makes your coffee no better than soda.
Caffeine, Sugar and Moderation
While I can concede the empirical impacts from Con that Caffeine is probably not great for one in excess, like all things moderation is key for a healthy and balanced life. Caffeine is no exception. In moderation caffeine does a good job of perking us up, improving our moods, and even curing headaches. There are a whole host of other benefits as well, read the Business Insider article to see them all.
On the note of Moderation, it's actually pretty difficult to get too much caffeine. The mayo clinic notes that a healthy amount of caffeine for the typical adult is about 400mg, or 4 cups of brewed coffee. That means that so long as one just enjoys one or two cups of morning brew, they're going to be fine.
Sugar's baggage isn't as light as Caffeine's however. It inhibits our body's ability to feel full, it causes harm to our skin, teeth, and organs, and promotes other unhealthy eating choices. See the video linked to the side for further details.
Whether or not sugar masks the flavor, the masking is how it changes it, changing via masking means we have more options of varying degrees of taste.
Pro concedes all the additional uses that the additoin of sugar to coffee enables. I thank Pro for this concession and there is no satire at all involved, all the uses are very real.
I will re-iterate all the uses to make it clear and give Pro once last chance to rebut me before conceding this entire debate:
One can have less-strong coffee with sugar for the same energy rush especially fi they areintolerant to caffeine. http://www.caffeineinformer.com... Decaf doesn't mean you don't want sugar... What a nonsensical conclusion to draw.
There is caffeine is coffee and it doesn't decay with sugar so absolutely any benefit caffeine gives you is present even with the added sugar.
At the point sugar changes the flavor of the coffee there is a one-to-one trade off. Con can't claim impacts for greater variety sugar doesn't add to the coffee's flavor, but outright changes it.
Further, at the point sugary coffee encourages drinkers to consume other sugary beverages, there is a net harm to this flavor that sugar without coffee lacks.
Once again I'm going to encourage voters to discount the satirical nature of this argument. Consider these arguments under a framework that values quality of life
- Murder is a bad thing, murder from sugar overdose is a specifically cruel thing to do.
- Suicide is a complex and intricate phenomena, but promoting death by decreasing quality of live through the overconsumption of sugar is a cruel and wrong. If one chooses to commit suicide even after seeing a mental health professional, they should do so in a safe comfortable environment.
- The science argument is new, give it not credence. Further, advantages of glucose isolated from coffee are irrelevent. Do not vote on them.
- Rape is awful, there is not need to warrant this. Don't even give this argument weight in a theoretical sense - doing otherwise would grant legitimacy to an act which is an otherwise horrifying violence against a person
- One shouldn't value self-harm. Promoting good oral health is important.
I could outright concede the benefits of sugar as far as providing energy, the minor boost the sugar would give someone in conjunction to the caffeine don't outweigh the negative health impacts associated with high sugar consumption.
Decaf is still a sin.
ContraDictator forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.