The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Stop drinking soda

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 102706
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




People should stop drinking soda for many reasons. Did you know that people are more likely to get diabetes, by just drinking one soda a day? Well over the years there hasn't been solid proof but it is possible that it could maybe be raising the chances. Also did you know 20oz bottle of soda has more sugar (65 grams of sugar), than a 20oz hot chocolate (59 grams of sugar)? Though you can buy soda almost anywhere and it is convenient to travel with, water is too. But studies proved that the average american drinks 44.7 gallons of soda in only one year and the average american drinks 28.3 gallons of water over the course of a year. Which isn't healthy. Soda also isn't good for your teeth, it rots and decays your teeth. In conclusion i just wanted to add that there are many reasons of why you should stop drinking soda, but the choice is yours no one can force you to not drink soda. So just know i am just trying to help you try to be healthy and i am not saying to never drink soda, just not every day.


There is no doubt in my mind that my opponent holds the best of intentions. However, I hold that as in all things, moderation is key.

thus I offer the following contentions to negate the resolution.

Contention one: Soda is not malignant if coupled with proper oral hygiene. according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information: Dental erosion (erosive tooth wear) is the situation of a chronic loss of dental hard tissue that is chemically etched away from the tooth surface by acid and/or chelation without bacterial involvement. Acids of intrinsic (gastrointestinal) and extrinsic (dietary and environmental) origins are the main etiologic factors (ten Cate and Imfeld, 1996; Hefferren, 2004). Rampant caries is defined as quickly spreading caries that affecting at least two of the upper incisors (Winter et al., 1966). In epidemiologic studies, rampant caries is defined as a decayed, missed and filled teeth (DMFT) value of 5 or more, and labial caries is regarded as a specific entity (Cleaton-Jones et al., 1978).

To clear up the scientific jargon in this card I will put this into layman terms. Basically, tooth decay is the loss of enamel caused by acids. the acids in soda simply aren't powerful enough to cause tooth decay unless it's left on your teeth for an extended period of time. Say, overnight. Simple oral hygiene techniques along with the moderate consumption of soft drinks can lead to perfectly healthy teeth.

Contention two. Soda, in moderation isn't a bad thing. The American Heart Association recommends that an individual not consume more than three cans of soda per week. So if you simply limit yourself to one can of soda on Friday or Saturday will place yourself well within the expert recommended limit. There's really not a lot to say on this point so I'm going to move on to attack my opponents points.

Contention three. Stopping soda consumption completely would drastically harm the economy. Simple economic principles state that when big businesses leave a country for one reason or another, the economy suffers. The soft drink industry is as you can imagine, very large and very wealthy. with bottling plants and office jobs all over the country the soft drink industry not only stimulates the economy through commerce, but the industry also produces many jobs throughout the country. And as we all know, unemployment is not good for an economy. If everyone in America, or even the world were to stop consuming soda the companies that make it would do one of two things. If it's simply everyone in America, they would leave the country and stop wasting money keeping operations here which would cause unemployment to rise and would cause the economy to take a hit. If it's everyone in the world, the companies would undoubtedly go under and be forced to file for bankruptcy which would also harm the global economy.

1. My opponent cites a "fact" that he himself admits is not factual. It is a mere possibility. not a fact. therefore, minimal consideration should be granted to this argument.

2. My opponent argues that soda has more sugar than hot chocolate and then states that the average american consumes 44.7 gallons of soda annually and only 28.3 gallons of water. While I agree that Americans probably drink to much soda for their own good, it would be overcompensation to stop the consumption of soda entirely. If you refer back to my case, I argued and provided sources to support the fact that moderation is key.

3. He states that soda rots your teeth. I would ask you to simply look back on my case for further information on that point.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
But I love soda!!!!! I could never live without it!!
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
Honestly, you shouldn't make a one round debate. It eliminates any chance at a rebuttal.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gocubsgo25 3 years ago
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither did a bad job, but Con certainly came out with the better sources and conduct. He provided several sources and many main points. The thing, I think, that killed Pro's argument was when he says there is a fact that soda consumption leads to diabetes, then takes it back and acknowledges it is only speculation. That, in itself, destroys the credibility of Pro's argument.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro states a few points concerning overconsumption of soda in America. They're good points. And health risks of drinking soda kind of go without saying. However, con is able to prove that drinking soda in moderation is not harmful to your teeth or overall health, as long as one follows proper hygiene procedures. He also refutes pro's main points, effectively proving that drinking some soda is a more reasonable alternative to drinking no soda, especially considering the economic impact he cites.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.