Instigator / Con
Points: 7

Junk Food Tax


The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Pro
Points: 2
Junk Food Tax
Round 1
I waive, in case of trolling and/or forfeiting.

People are stupid, the nanny state is annoying but face it, in this day and age most adults are clueless and do need a nanny  to loo out for their welfare
Round 2
Despite your trolling about nannys and adults, I will continue to debate properly. 

It seems you think that a tax would help guide adults into making better choices but it doesn't, in fact the tax won't make a dent in current obesity in Americans, as proved my points and sources below..

My Points:
(copied from my other debates)

Junk food, the despised product by most "healthy" Americans. Government officials are starting to blame this food for the cause of obesity in America. They are creating a junk food tax hoping to decrease the amount of obese citizens. But it just won’t work!
    Now this tax isn’t new. In 2011, Denmark introduced the world first tax relating to this matter, “The Fat Tax”. Less than 12 months after it was introduced, it was taken away. Danish people were going other countries to buy the cheap, good tasting junk food. If we implement this tax , some junk food driven people would go to other countries to buy it! )
    The tax has not faced the real problem, promotions and advertising. Health campaigns funded by the government were crushed by the junk food marketing. Frito lay itself spend 146 million dollars a year on marketing. The problem of obesity is too complex for just a junk food tax to eliminate it."The bottom line is that the tax isn't going to make anybody healthier, it's not going to make a dent in a problem as complex and serious as obesity, and we're certainly not going to solve the complexities of the health -care system with a tax on soda pop." Kevin W. Keane a worker at the American Beverage Association says. Also a report from the Tax Policy Center said that nutrition taxes are understudied, so it’s very risky to implement this tax.
A study from Cornell university, found that in Berkeley the cities obesity rates didn’t lower as much as people thought. So if you are thinking about a massive curb in obesity, it won’t happen. It’s bad for economy too. The potato chip industry is worth 26 billion dollars and the candy industry is worth 79 billion dollars, so how much do you think the junk food industry is worth? You are putting a industry worth billions at risk just for a tax that won’t work and people hate. A junk food tax in Hungary was released in 2011, it only lowered the consuming of junk food products by 3.4%, and the raised the consuming of healthy products by 1.1% also thus proving that it won’t curb obesity that much.
This proves 1, THE TAX DOESN'T WORK
The junk food tax is just making the obese poor. They will keep on buying the junk food for a more expensive price. Instead of having a cheaper alternative to healthy food, they’ll have 2 expensive options. Junk food activates the same centers in your brain that cocaine does, so it’s really easy to get addicted. “Food companies will spend millions of dollars to discover the most satisfying level of crunch in potato chips and their scientists will test for the perfect amount of fizzle in a soda,” “Don't get caught in their traps.” says Shayna Komar, a licensed registered dietitian.
The tax is just hurting the poor and helping the rich. Poor people who are used to buying the cheaper, shelf stable, and  convenient unhealthy option will have to pay more, making them even more poor. All the relief programs will be useless. The poor people will just have no choice in food resulting in starvation. The whole point of tax was to get people less sick, but in the end you would just make more people sick!

CHOICE January 2017 edition.

 if you want less of something tax it
Round 3

if you want less of something tax it
You have absolutely no resources. I literally just proved the tax wouldn't work, so therefore you won't get less of "it".

Stop Trolling and VOTE CON
it you tax something people will consume less of it that is pretty self evident no? but here ->
Round 4
Thank you for responding.

That was talking not about the JF tax. It has now been shown that it doesn't work by my claims.

Well according to ronald reagan any time you tax something you discourage its use
--> @billbatard
According to Ronald Reagan????????
He is like the total anti-socialist
--> @Christen, @Ragnar, @bmdrocks21, @WaterPhoenix
Vote pls
--> @bmdrocks21
--> @Club
Dude, you just got roasted.
--> @Trent0405
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?
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Some credit to pro for a very concise case...
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.
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.
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).
While pro's behavior was suspect, being poor at arguing is not a crime.