Junk Food Tax
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Junk Food Tax
if you want less of something tax it
Some credit to pro for a very concise case...
Nanny-State:
This argument was that people should not be free, that someone else should make the decisions for them; but failed to link to any direction this lack of freedom should take and why.
Obesity:
Con argues that obesity would not drop to the rate someone would argue it would from the tax. Sadly this highlighted the BoP failure from pro, as con's arguments were based around a better debater who would build such a case.
Wealth Disparity:
Con argues that income inequality would be increased by the tax, potentially even leading to isolated cases of starvation. This is a fantastic stand alone reason to reject it.
---
Sources:
Con, please integrate your sources a little more (the only ones that should be listed, are the ones directly referenced; I am still awarding the point for those)...
So a single quote, vs a well researched case such as a Business Wire report on the potato chip industry which the tax would harm: no contest (while I don't believe a tax on potato chips would actually lead to anyone starving, the claim was made and supported, and then unchallenged).
Conduct:
While pro's behavior was suspect, being poor at arguing is not a crime.
According to Ronald Reagan????????
He is like the total anti-socialist
Vote pls
lol
Dude, you just got roasted.
A junk food tax is a so-called sin tax, taxes which stop people from doing something.
Also, this is debate # 800.
Club I've got a question, does a sin tax, tax junk food?