Instigator
Points: 26

Junk Food Tax-Yeah A PART3

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Club
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Points: 5
Description
Junk Food Tax
If it's practical
And should we implement it
Round 1
Published:
I waive

Published:
Pft Waiving... just want to see my points ay?

Well see this junk food tax is a terrible idea and a lazy excuse for trying to cure obesity. Now lazy might sound like a sort of harsh word but it just won't work. It really doesn't matter where you put the tax on the company producing the food or the junk food itself. If you were to just put it on the junk food itself what's stopping people from going to somewhere else and buying that junk food? If you were to put it on the company producing the junk food it's even worse because since the company will have to pay a tax that will probably cost a lot of money making the company go bankrupt and stop producing food. How is that bad you ask? Well, because the company probably doesn't exclusively produce junk food which will hurt the economy. 

The junk food is supposed to "cure obesity" but really, are all of the people buying junk food obese? Junk food is really cheap making it a viable option for those in poverty. If you were to tax the junk food making it more expensive sure you may or may not help the obese, but really your just increasing poverty rates.


Really Club, your the most educated and the best at this subject on the whole of debate art how do you not know that this is really just COMMON SENSE ;) 
(if you get that reference gj your probs on my school debate team)
Round 2
Published:
1.
Where are your sources? Common sense is not a proper resource, we can question the reliability of your "common sense", which comes from your culture and background.
2. "The Nirvana Fallacy"
Is there currently a way to "cure obesity" ? We at least have to try. Obesity is a problem that is taking away lives so fast in the American society? We still don't have a proper solution, but even if the tax doesn't help 100% we need to at least have something actively fixing it.
3.
Well see this junk food tax is a terrible idea and a lazy excuse for trying to cure obesity.
How is it lazy? It actively fixes the problem... Please elaborate
4.
what's stopping people from going to somewhere else and buying that junk food?
Plenty of things... 
A. The cost
If we implement it all through the country, it takes a lot of money to go to other countries
B. Foreign Junk Food
Some people only want to buy one type of Junk Food, in many foreign places there are different types of Junk Food, that some people won't want
5.
f you were to put it on the company producing the junk food it's even worse because since the company will have to pay a tax that will probably cost a lot of money making the company go bankrupt and stop producing food. How is that bad you ask? Well, because the company probably doesn't exclusively produce junk food which will hurt the economy. 
A junk food tax will actually increase the economy and make it better with more healthy food companies springing up with the decrease of purchase of junk food.



Published:
1: Response:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://discoverer.prod.sirs.com/discoweb/disco/do/article?urn=urn%3Asirs%3AUS%3BARTICLE%3BART%3B0000299371
http://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=9057
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmhttp://discoverer.prod.sirs.com/discoweb/disco/do/article?urn=urn%3Asirs%3AUS%3BARTICLE%3BART%3B0000299371c/articles/PMC3828689/
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=2&docId=GALE%7CA255968437&docType=Brief+article&sort=RELEVANCE-SORT&contentSegment=&prodId=MSIC&contentSet=GALE%7CA255968437&searchId=R2&userGroupName=elli13047&inPS=true
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/how-many-people-are-poor-united-states
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arleneweintraub/2018/01/10/should-we-tax-junk-foods-to-curb-obesity/#1eeb024d7df6
http://www.howmanyarethere.us/how-many-people-have-diabetes-in-the-us/
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170223006278/en/26-Billion-Potato-Chips-Market-Global-Industry
https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/candy-market
CHOICE January 2017 edition.
https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/frito-lay-names-cmo-100547/
https://www.piedmont.org/living-better/why-is-junk-food-so-addictive
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919215000561
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/should-we-tax-unhealthy-foods-and-drinks/full
https://www.yelp.com/biz/everything-plastic-philadelphia?adjust_creative=bing&utm_campaign=yelp_feed&utm_medium=feed_v2&utm_source=bing

whats ironic is that you, Club, actually wrote these.

2.Response:
Is it really worth risking our economy and poverty rates for a theoretical "cure"? We knwo the negative affects of what will happen but do we know the posititives? 
3.
Well see this junk food tax is a terrible idea and a lazy excuse for trying to cure obesity.
How is it lazy? It actively fixes the problem... Please elaborate

ya want elaboration??? m8 can you not even readdddddd?

Now lazy might sound like a sort of harsh word but it just won't work. It really doesn't matter where you put the tax on the company producing the food or the junk food itself. If you were to just put it on the junk food itself what's stopping people from going to somewhere else and buying that junk food? If you were to put it on the company producing the junk food it's even worse because since the company will have to pay a tax that will probably cost a lot of money making the company go bankrupt and stop producing food. How is that bad you ask? Well, because the company probably doesn't exclusively produce junk food which will hurt the economy. 
I literally typed that whole paragraph to frickin elaborate


4: Response:
As I have written a lot of poor people buy junk food and use it as a food source, not as a source of positive stimulation

5: Response:
Healthy food costs more than junk food, making this a less viable option for people in poverty, who are the main consumers of junk food.




Round 3
Published:

1: Response:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHOICE January 2017 edition.

whats ironic is that you, Club, actually wrote these.
1. 
As you can see you are actually plagiarizing my own resources, sorry, but you cannot use that on this debate. (this is poor conduct by WaterPhoneix)
2.
Please write out your response to what individual saying I had, or else it won't make sense.
3.
ya want elaboration??? m8 can you not even readdddddd?[…]

I literally typed that whole paragraph to frickin elaborate
Vote Pro for better grammar, and better conduct.
You didn't elaborate either, you just wrote the same thing. None of the things there are actually proving theat the tax itself are lazy. We will define lazy as this:
1a : disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous
You so far haven't proved the meaning for lazy using that paragrah.
4.
Is it really worth risking our economy and poverty rates for a theoretical "cure"? We knwo the negative affects of what will happen but do we know the posititives?
How do we know the negatives but not positives. It was the positives that created the tax right? But we don't know if the poverty rates will change, it's not certain. You can't make this claim. I can counter that with this claim:
Is not doing the tax really worth risking an increase in our economy and lower chances of heart disease, and diabetes?
Also bad grammar here too. 
5.
Healthy food costs more than junk food, making this a less viable option for people in poverty, who are the main consumers of junk food.
But if healthy food and junk food costs the same, then which would one buy? Heathy food, because it has more benefits for the same price. Essentially, we are forcing healthiness, as a last resort, to benefit the general public.
6. You didn't respond to my point on the Nirvana Fallacy.




Published:
I waive.
Round 4
Published:
Extend Arguments
#Waivinginthemiddleofadebatefornoreasonatall

Published:
#yacauseimgonnalosethisandidontfeellikedoinganymoreworksooo....iconcede?

I waive again...
actually i concede butttttt

Added:
--> @Club
Good Game Well Played
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @WaterPhoenix
what?
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @Club
ggwp
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @Club
No... You
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @WaterPhoenix
Stop being salty that you conceded
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @Club
I didn't plagiarize tho cause you shared the sources w/ me?!
Contender
#6
Added:
This could've been a very big win by Con, but instead he used points that were either very weak, or false.
Instigator
#5
Added:
i jsut said im forfeiting m8
Contender
#4
Added:
CONCEDING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @WaterPhoenix
Waiving in the middle of a debate is essentially forfeiting, which is bad conduct.
Instigator
#2
Added:
this is for practice only, I actually don't support a Junk Food Tax.
Instigator
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
No idea what that was: but con conceded in the final round: which luckily exempts me from having to work it out.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I'm very confused, but using my standard rule for intentional concessions of a debate (arguments to one, conduct to the other).
I am very unsure what a yelp review on plastic even had to do with this debate...
I am also unclear where con plagiarized from (I believe it due to both debaters seeming to agree it happened, so pretty much automatic loss, but it was still weird).
Waiving a round is not in itself bad conduct. Forfeiting involves forcing someone to wait out the clock, waiving isn't comparable on a conduct level... Like forfeiture, it still hurts arguments, as it is dropping every single point for a round. I've seen it done as bad conduct to try Final Round Blitzkriegs, to which I discount their BS and award arguments as if they had nothing, but he conceded instead of trying to make a last minute case which could not be responded to.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Contender conceded in the last Round.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
What the fuck.