Instigator / Con
0
1488
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#1389

Junk Food Tax

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1535
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Description

I'm am con, pro has to prove that JF tax is beneficial to society, Con has to prove it's not.

-->
@Christen

Dustryder's strong arguments were that the Danish junk food tax doesn't really count since it "includes meats, dairy products such as margarine, butter, milk and cheese as well as a kitchen staples such as cooking oils," which shows that a junk food tax should not be including things that are not junk food. Dustryder also offers some solutions of his own for addressing the obesity problem, like how "One, by increasing general health, less must be necessarily be spent on healthcare. Two, by increasing general health, better productivity can be achieved which translates to better outcomes economically speaking."

-->
@Christen

I'm referring to the debaters by their actual usernames, and not by Pro and Con, since that's lame.
I give conduct to dustryder because NotClub forfeited 2 rounds for no reason.
I gave spelling and grammar to NotClub since dustryder made a major grammar error in round 3 which was recognized by NotClub in round 4: "Grammar error (I'm pretty sure you don't mean to help obesity"
I give sources dustryder since NotClub's source were vague and biased. NotClub tries to cite articles to show that "Junk Food Taxes Don't Work" but it's like NotClub didn't actually read past the title or something. For example, one of NotClub's sources said that "many people live in areas where little else besides this type of food is available, areas called food deserts" and by "this type of food" it's referring to junk food. The simple solution to this would be to only apply a junk food tax in areas that do not have these food deserts, so that way, you are still helping cutting down on junk food, but just not in the areas that can only have junk food. Then you can use the tax dollars raised from these junk food taxes to help build for markets, with fresh food, in the areas with food deserts, so you can then start a junk food tax there, and raise more money for more junk food taxes and for eliminating the food deserts.
I tied arguments, as both sides had strong arguments.
NotClub's strong arguments were how the junk food taxes were ultimately going to initially hurt the poorest people instead of help them, since they would just spend more on junk food instead of switching to healthy food, which would not be available to them very easily, also NotClub also argued how people would just go somewhere else to get their junk food if they were really determined to get it. NotClub's other strong argument was about food deserts in general, and how junk food taxes don't really address the main problem with people being unhealthy to begin with.

-->
@Christen

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for sources and conduct; 1 point to con for S&G

>Reason for Decision:See above

Reason for Mod Action>Conduct is sufficient.

S&G is not sufficient: Spelling and Grammar should be awarded when one sides spelling or grammar substantially effects readability of the debate, a few typos is not sufficient to award these points.

Sources: Source point is not sufficiently justified. Sources are to be awarded based on the impact and quality of the sources, and the voter must compare how the sources impact the arguments one side presented, using examples.

Arguments: for the purposes of completeness - arguments here are borderline. As the voter tied arguments, these are sufficient

*******************************************************************

-->
@David
@Ramshutu

The vote?

-->
@Barney
@NotClub

Thanks for the feedback.

I would still award conduct to dustryder since NotClub waived 2 rounds and did not use that opportunity to make more strong arguments.

Both side's sources were good; neither was necessarily bad or fake or anything. I just find dustryder's to be more detailed and better.

-->
@Christen

Quick bit of advice about voting: Other than arguments, only award points for overwhelming leads. S&G for example, the errors should be distracting from the arguments, not a typo or two which were you debating you would want any reasonable person to forgive.

I will second Club on the conduct award. He hurt his arguments with waiving rounds, but he did not make anyone wait the full time allotment of a forfeiture.

I fully support you on making arguments a tie. Some people hate it, but it's the default setting for a reason. If you are uncertain who should win, no harm is inflicted by saying that.

-->
@Christen

I think you should tie conduct. Why? Because waiving is not forfeiting. Forfeiting is much worse. And I think we can agree that none of us really insulted one another. As for sources... My main sources were US NEWS which is proved to be very reliable. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/us-news-world-report/
Dustyryder used good sources too, so I guess the only thing you can give is grammar. I don't think that the "help obesity" was that much of a grammar error. The spelling and grammar was okay for both sides.

So you can probably award a tie for both sides.

-->
@Barney

Okay

-->
@dustryder
@NotClub

If no one votes on this, remind me and I will. I am hesitant due to having worked closely with Club on a previous debate for this resolution.

-->
@dustryder

Good luck! I'm excited to see someone who won't forfeit this whole debate.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I was saying they were mainly trolls. Yes, a joke.

-->
@bmdrocks21

That was a joke right?

I don't get what you meant.

Not the CCJ part.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

His name was CommanderCornJuice, my good sir.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Commander corn? (Understand who it is)

Was it supposed to be ironic as in I would debate them?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You mean you'll debate someone who isn't commander corn juice, crossed, or billbatard?

-->
@NotClub

Knew it. Want to debate me again?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I did change my name to NOT club, yeah I wanted a better win loss ratio cause I screwed it up.

-->
@NotClub

bruh this is like the best name change ever club->notclub can really tell you put a lot of thought into this

-->
@NotClub

You didn't change your name. You just decided to make a new account given your bad win loss ratio. That would be my most likely scenario but I may be wrong.

-->
@NotClub

*Fuck you changed your name. I thought I was losing it for a moment*

I would accept but it is time consuming given I don't have the data on the top of my head. Would have to structure my points then implement it. Other debates I can simply rebut and make claims relatively quick.