The Instigator
DevonNetzley
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

soda is bad for you

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 4 votes the winner is...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,234 times Debate No: 19435
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

DevonNetzley

Pro

soda, it is dangerous for you. who agrees or disagrees with me?
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I accept. I will leave Round 2 for your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
DevonNetzley

Pro

thank you for accepting my argument.
as the topic states, soda is very bad for you. not only is it highly addictive but high in accidity as well.
i have no further argument until my opponent responds. thanks for reading.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument.

Definitions

Since my opponent did not provide definitions, I will.
soda: "a carbonated liquid beverage that does not contain alcohol"[1]
bad for you: unhealthy

Argument

My opponent's argument, in syllogism form, is the following:

1. Soda is highly addictive
2. Soda is high in acidity
3. Therefore, soda is bad for you

If I can show that statements 1 and 2 are false, then statement 3 is false. This is becase the converse of a statement is not necessarily true. For instance, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, and thus, one cannot say a rectangle is a square. So if I can prove that not all sodas (rectangles) are squares (bad for you), then one cannot say soda is bad for you.

Highly addictive
Not all sodas are "highly addictive" (which, none are really highly addictive, in comparison to other substances, but I will let this slide). My opponent is referring to the caffeine present in many sodas when he states they are highly addictive. However, there are several sodas which do not contain caffeine; for example, Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola and Caffeine-Free Diet Pepsi do not contain caffeine.

These sodas do not contain caffeine, and therefore they are not addictive in that regard -- and even if there were other substances in these products, you must prove they are "highly addictive" -- which to call caffeine "highly addictive" is already a stretch compared to other substances.

High in acidity
Not all sodas are "high in acidity." For instance, Creeper Cola[2], Zevia[3] and most root beers do not contain phosphoric acid, the chief acid in soda. Therefore, not all sodas are extremely acidic.

Conclusion
Because I have proven that not all sodas are highly addictive, and not all sodas are high in acidity, one cannot vaguely say "soda is bad for you" without any conditions. I look forward to my opponent's response

Sources

1. www.bettycjung.net/201/Wsreports/Soda.pdf
2. http://www.bongwatersoda.com...
3. http://www.zevia.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DevonNetzley

Pro

very good argument.

sugar in soda is one thing i did not see stated in your argument. sugar (in high intake) is harmful to the body. "If sugar were to be put on the market for the first time today, it would probably be difficult to get it past the FDA." Kathleen DesMaisons Potatoes not Prozac. Lethbridge Undergraduate Research Journal ISSN 1718-8482. sugar can have the similar effects to drug abuse. the other effects include cavities, weight gain, mood swings, diabetes, circulatory abnormalities, silent heart attacks, and heart disease.

caffeine in general is a dangerous stimulant. addiction causes some side effects. which include nervousness, headache, increased heart rate, anxiety, upset stomach, irregular heartbeat, irritability, GI irritation, elevated blood pressure, agitation, heartburn, increased cholesterol, tremors, diarrhea, nutritional deficiencies, insomnia, fatigue, poor concentration, depression, dizziness, bed wetting. caffeine withdrawl includes headache, constipation, runny nose, craving, constipation, anxiety, nausea, irritability, nervousness, vomiting, insomnia, shakiness, cramps, fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, depression, drowsiness, feeling hot and cold, apathy, inability to concentrate. caffeine (in high amounts) can cause heart problems. caffeine increases your heart beat almost double of a resting heart beat. if you take that and add a vigerous activity your chance of heart attack or stroke increase tenfold.

And to add from your argument. their is no such thing as soda being good for you. every soda contains at least sugar, caffiene, or some other leathal chemical. for your diet sodas that contain artificial sweeteners such as Acesulfame potassium (Sunett, Sweet One), Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), Neotame, Saccharin (SugarTwin, Sweet'N Low), Sucralose (Splenda). are all curently approved by the FDA. but as harmless as they seem they can cause serious health problems such as cancer.

thank you for reading that is all.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I thank my opponent for his reply and thoughtful argument.

Argument

I believe my opponent missed my point. He says "their [sic] is no such thing as soda being good for you." While I still disagree with even this statement, I want to point out that I am not arguing the position that soda is good for you, but rather that soda is not "bad for you." by showing that through not all sodas have the unhealthy ingredients you mention, not all sodas are bad in this sense.

First, my opponent mentions the effects of sugar. Not all sodas have sugar (Diet Coca-Cola, Diet Pepsi, Diet Rite, etc.). This, combined with the fact that not all sodas have caffeine (for instance, Caffeine-Free Diet Coca-Cola), demonstrates that not all sodas are "bad for you" in this sense.

My opponent secondly goes on to state the effects of caffeine. However, this is almost completely irrelevant. I have already shown that not all sodas contain caffeine, therefore not all sodas are "bad for you" in this sense either. Again, we must remember that you generalized "soda is bad for you" with no conditions; therefore, if not all soda is "bad for you" in the ways you mention, you cannot simply state soda is unhealthy without adding conditions.

My opponent then erroneously states that every soda contains "at least sugar, caffiene, or some other leathal [sic] chemical." However, this is simply not true -- in two regards. First, there are some sodas that do not contain sugar or caffeine; for instance, Diet Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola does not contain caffeine or sugar, but rather a sugar substitute. However, even with the caffeine and sugar, a Coca-Cola does not contain a lethal (lethal: of, pertaining to, or causing death[1]) amount of either. This argument does not stand on any point. Not only are there sodas that do not contain either, but even if they did, they would not be lethal.

My opponent then states that artificial sweeteners "can cause serious health problems such as cancer." However, not all sodas contain artificial sweeteners, for instance, Zevia does not contain artificial sweeteners.[2]

Conclusion

I have again shown that not all soda is unhealthy. Because not all soda is unhealthy, it is incorrect to state "soda is bad for you" without making conditions, such as "caffeinated soda is bad for you," or "sugary soda is bad for you." Because soda manufacturers have found a market in health-minded consumers, not all soda is bad for you.

I would also like to remind voters that by definition -- "a carbonated liquid beverage that does not contain alcohol" -- soda is not "bad for you."

Sources

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...;
2. http://www.zevia.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Soda is good for me, it's either that or alcohol. Soda was invented as a substitute for alcohol. I've been drinking soda for 40 years with not one side effect. I drink it all day every day. I"m not a fat pig either like some non soda drinkers.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Thank you for clarifying, my friend.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I'm not entirely sure, but I think a debate.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Dear Heavens what have I gotten myself into...
Posted by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
I drink Dr. Pepper. That soda has an MD. How can it be bad for me?
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
...how can soda be good for someone lol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JakeBoatman96 5 years ago
JakeBoatman96
DevonNetzleyNur-Ab-SalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro obviously doesn't understand how to capitalize the proper letters in a sentence. Pro never backed up any of his claims with a source. Pro also seemed to ramble and missed the point. This was pointed out by Con in round three.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
DevonNetzleyNur-Ab-SalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Difficult to argue that soda is not bad for you. Pro started out awfully and has horrible grammar/spelling. But in the end he proved his case despite his obvious inexperience.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
DevonNetzleyNur-Ab-SalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more convincing than Pro's. Con's use of sources earns him points.
Vote Placed by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
DevonNetzleyNur-Ab-SalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con negated all of pro's arguments.