The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

government should implement a 'fat tax'

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
AlexanderOc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 59189
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes.

my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends.

could make an exception for medically known reasons for being over weight.

i might agree with making the tax contingent on taking any government benefits, i'm not sure. probably along the idea of the 'obama care penalty' logic, i'd tax all who are fat, cause everyone needs health care at some point, especially notably those who are fat.
AlexanderOc

Con

This was one of the first debates I ever did. Let's see if my arguments still hold up.

I. Cross-Examination


"the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes."

This argument is completely irrational. First off, if we are going to go taxing people for having obesity-related diseases, then why not tax people with diabetes or someone who has cancer? After all, they are increasing health care costs.

"my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends."

First off, Pro's understanding is irrelevant, She should support her argument here. An argument that is not supported by evidence can be digarded without evidence.
Second, Slippery slope argument being made. Simply because over-eaters would have to pay a tax does not directly mean that they will eat less or be less sedentary.

Finally, I'm not sure Pro even knows what a fat tax is. A fat tax is a tax on fatty foods, it's not a tax that is taken from overwheight individuals. Regardless, her arguments for the latter were pretty bad.

II. Closing remarks
Pro seems to just spout out unsupported claims and use fallicious arguments. Perhaps if she understood what a fat tax was, she may have had some better arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"This argument is completely irrational. First off, if we are going to go taxing people for having obesity-related diseases, then why not tax people with diabetes or someone who has cancer? After all, they are increasing health care costs. "

because not everyone with diabetes or cancer necessarily did something culpable, like eating too much or being too lazy.

con's argument here is completely and utterly irrational. "At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."

"First off, Pro's understanding is irrelevant, She should support her argument here. An argument that is not supported by evidence can be digarded without evidence.
Second, Slippery slope argument being made. Simply because over-eaters would have to pay a tax does not directly mean that they will eat less or be less sedentary."

my argument is based on a 'good guess' a matter of good judgment. i highly doubt sales taxes are enough to compensate for the health care costs, given sales taxes are used for so many other purposes. why do i need explicit study support on something so obvious?
as to the slippery slope point. what are you even talking about a slippery slope? the point you make after that assertion is not even a slippery slope argument.
but as to that point. the tax does not have to cause them to eat less or be less sedentary. it will likely have that effect to some degree, but the main point is that we should be getting revenue to make up for their health care costs.

con insists for some reason that his definition of a fat tax is better than the strawman definition he says i used. i didn't give a definition and it's somewhat irrelvant. i'd say either a tax on fatty foods, or better yet or both.... a direct tax on fat people.
AlexanderOc

Con

I. Cross-Examination

"because not everyone with diabetes or cancer necessarily did something culpable, like eating too much or being too lazy."

So all of the sudden we should tax things that my opponent finds culpable? That makes no sense. Simply because she disliked people eating more than her and not being active does not mean they should be taxed.

Next, Pro put words into my mouth by claiming I made such a derogatory statement. I meant no disrespect by calling her argument irrational, I was only stating the obvious.

In my opponents next rebuttal, she claims to base her arguments on "good guesses" and "good judgements". This is not evidence, this is opinion.
Pro cannot support a claim by saying "but it's so obvious"

Actually, her argument was slippery slope. She stated that because people are taxed for being fat, that they will stop eating and being lazy. She draws no line between the two and just assumes that is the case. Where's the proof that it will work? How do we know that people will actually react this way to the tax?

Finally, I apologize to Pro if it seemed like I was suggesting her definition was sub-par. I meant to say that it was different than the common conception of a 'Fat Tax'.

II. Closing remarks

Pro continues to lack actual support for her argument.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i am blown away by con's arguments, and i have no choice but to concede. what was i ever thinking. too many points that were irrational and made no sense, on my part. fortunately con has shown me the error of my ways.
AlexanderOc

Con

I detect a fallacious tone in my opponents concession. That is, however, irrelevant.

Had fun with the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 3 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
Whoa, I must have misread this earlier. Pro indicated a possible *direct* tax. Yeah, nah, I don't support that. Go con! :P Also... I'm confused about pro's second quote in round two. Where did that come from? Con didn't state anything like that in round one (his only round posted thus far).
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
I must wonder...how can Pro have engaged in so many debates and still post noob-like debate arguments?
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 3 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
*scratch the "yet". I'm not really convinced at all, so it would take a really good argument to convince me XD
Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 3 years ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
In a slight sense, doesn't a "fat" tax already exist? Prepared foods are taxed (fast food, restaurant meals, etc.) and candy bars and soda are taxed in some states.

Anyway, interesting topic, yet I'm not convinced yet that this should be supported. I'll have to check out how you craft your argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by LDPOFODebATeR0328 3 years ago
LDPOFODebATeR0328
dairygirl4u2cAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
dairygirl4u2cAlexanderOcTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.