Instigator / Con
Points: 0

Junk Food Tax

Finished

The voting period has ended

After not so many votes, surprise surprise...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 0
Description
I'm am con, pro has to prove that JF tax is beneficial to society, Con has to prove it's not.
Round 1
Published:
I waive in case of trolling or forfeiting.
Published:
1. Obesity and society

Obesity is a plague upon modern day society. One, because of it's prevalence - nearly 40% of American adults are estimated to be obese[1] and two, because of its devastating effect on society. Obesity has definitively been linked to increased risk in disease. This in turn has lead to higher healthcare costs and decreased worker productivity. [2]

Therefore there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that obesity is indeed a detriment to society and solutions should be found to mitigate and/or solve this problem.


2. Junk food and obesity

Junk food has time and time again been shown to be linked to obesity. [3] When solving a problem it is vacuously obvious that targeting contributing factors to a particular problem is likely to help or solve that problem.

Therefore junk food is a valid target when constructing a solution to mitigate and/or solve obesity.


3. Sin taxes and junk food

A junk food tax is an example of a sin tax. Sin taxes have been applied to various industries to curb undesired participation in those industries and these have generally been successful efforts. For example, increases in the price of tobacco has been shown to lead to a decrease in smoking. [4] Increases in the price of alcohol has been shown to lead to a decrease in the consumption of alcohol. [5]

It is therefore reasonable to make the assumption that an appropriately applied sin tax to junk food will appropriately result in a decrease in the consumption of junk food. Indeed, this is borne out by several studies which indicate just that. [6][7]


4. Diet taxes

Accordingly with the previous studies, there have been concrete examples of successful junk food taxes worldwide. Most commonly the so-called soda tax in which beverages with an excessive amount of sugar were taxed in order to reduce their consumption but also other taxes that are broader in scope in terms of diet.

For example, a sugar tax in Hungary has lead to a marked decrease in the purchasing of affected products. A soda tax in Mexico has also lead to a decrease in the purchasing of sugary drinks. [8]


Conclusion

Given the previous statements, a junk food tax is likely to be beneficial towards society. This is verified by logic, studies, and actual practices.




Round 2
Published:
Your whole reasoning is the pro's of a proposed "working junk food tax" but it doesn't work, which leads me to my, so far undefeated argument:

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!

This proves 2, IT WILL MAKE THE POOR POORER.

Published:
1. The Danish "fat tax"

Con has presented the Danish "fat tax" as an example of a failure of a junk food tax. As he correctly points out, some people were willing to cross the border to neighbouring regions to acquire the taxed products. However, there are several salient points to note here.

Firstly, the Danish "fat tax" exceeds the boundaries of what can be commonly considered a "junk food" tax and as such, should be rejected from consideration. A closer inspection of the policy reveals that it was a tax on the presence of saturated food within products. While this doubtlessly includes items typically described as "junk food" such as chips and pizzas, it also includes meats, dairy products such as margarine, butter, milk and cheese as well as a kitchen staples such as cooking oils. Such items are out of the scope of what a "junk food" tax is, and hence it is not an accurate representation unlike the examples given in round one.

Secondly, while my opponent was quick to express the weaknesses of the policy, this does not address the outcomes of the policy in relation to the goals overall nor has it quantified how those weaknesses impacted the policy as a whole. In general, it has been shown that the "fat tax" had an impact on the consumption of saturated fat products, which is consistent with what is expected of a sin tax. [1]

Finally, while sin taxes may push consumers towards buying products in nearby untaxed regions, case studies such as the Philadelphia soda tax have indicated that regardless, consumption remains lower overall. [2]


2. Advertising

Con points out that a junk food tax may face opposition by peddlers of junk food in the form of advertising.

This is certainly true, however it does not directly address the benefits of a junk food tax on society, and only makes clear there will be challenges towards implementing an effective policy, which is true for all policies. It is clear however from round one that many examples of sin taxes have been implemented successfully despite the interference of their respective industries and hence this likely to be the case for a more comprehensive junk food sin tax.


3. Complexity of obesity

Con argues that obesity is too complicated for a junk food tax eliminate and cites a worker at the American Beverage Association.

Firstly, his choice of expert opinion should be immediately rejected. A quick google search reveals that the American Beverage Association, if it weren't already obvious by the name is a "government lobbying group that represents the beverage industry in the United States". [3] Any unsubstantiated opinion coming from a spokesman of such a group is invariably riddled with bias. They have a direct incentive to stop any sort of tax which would reduce their sales.

Secondly, the claim that obesity is too complicated to solve via a junk food tax is completely unsubstantiated. Some studies even take an opposite stance. [4][5]

Finally, this topic has nothing to do with eliminating obesity. No one has made that claim. It is entirely to do with a junk food tax being a benefit to society. My arguments have addressed reducing obesity, which is likely to occur with reduced consumption of junk food and hence, a junk food tax being beneficial towards society.


4. Understudied

Con argues that nutrition taxes are understudied, and therefore risky.

Firstly, I've already presented several studies on various implementations of taxes on food. I've presented several studies on sin taxes in general. I would argue that they aren't understudied at all.

Secondly, even if I were to concede that such a tax is understudied, the studies otherwise provided have been promising and do not indicate any sort of significant risk. Con has not provided any evidences of risk and hence this point should be shelved until such a point otherwise.


5. Berkeley and Hungary

Con cites that in both Berkeley and Hungary where junk food taxes were implemented, obesity/consumption of junk food did not lower very much.

Con concedes that junk food taxes reduce obesity/consumption of junk food.


6. Impact on economy

Con argues that the junk food industries are at risk via a junk food tax.

This argument is unsubstantiated. There is evidence to suggest however that companies cope fine with such a taxes through initiatives such as reformulation, lower calorie alternatives and smaller sizes. [6]


7. Negative impact on the poor

Con argues that a junk food tax will make obese people poorer and that they will keep on buying junk food at a higher price. Whereas healthy food will remain at a high price as well.

Again, this argument seems to be mostly baseless conjecture. The studies provided from round one indicate that in general, there is a decrease in the amount of consumed junk food in response to a junk food tax. Additionally some studies have been shown that reinvesting the revenue from a junk food tax into healthy initiatives such as subsidising healthy foods is a promising avenue.

In particular, we found that a subsidy on healthy food financed by a tax on carbonated drinks, fatty
food or alcoholic beverages would be poverty reducing [7]




Round 3
Published:

Firstly, the Danish "fat tax" exceeds the boundaries of what can be commonly considered a "junk food" tax and as such, should be rejected from consideration. A closer inspection of the policy reveals that it was a tax on the presence of saturated food within products. While this doubtlessly includes items typically described as "junk food" such as chips and pizzas, it also includes meats, dairy products such as margarine, butter, milk and cheese as well as a kitchen staples such as cooking oils. Such items are out of the scope of what a "junk food" tax is, and hence it is not an accurate representation unlike the examples given in round one.
Secondly, while my opponent was quick to express the weaknesses of the policy, this does not address the outcomes of the policy in relation to the goals overall nor has it quantified how those weaknesses impacted the policy as a whole. In general, it has been shown that the "fat tax" had an impact on the consumption of saturated fat products, which is consistent with what is expected of a sin tax. [1]
Finally, while sin taxes may push consumers towards buying products in nearby untaxed regions, case studies such as the Philadelphia soda tax have indicated that regardless, consumption remains lower overall. [2]

1.
It still is valid, you can just throw it out because it has more than the Junk Food Tax. As I explained, it's very hard for people to quit buying JF because of the price. 

2. 
The fat tax in Denmark is still debated about if it worked or not. But it probably didn't, because the Danish government repealed it.
3.
But there's a catch. "We find a very large increase in sales of soda and other taxed products at stores that are located zero to four miles outside the city," she says.
Basically, it seems that a lot of people in Philadelphia are driving to stores right outside the city to buy their beverages. This is especially true in the case of sugar-sweetened drinks (and less so of artificially sweetened drinks). When you take that into account, sales in and around the city dropped about 20 percent, not 46 percent. And sales of sugar-sweetened drinks fell even less.
Yeah right, your source "indicates" that people went outside the city. Consumption overall means, how many people bought it (Tuchman says that sales of those drinks in Philadelphia have dropped sharply, by 46 percent, since the tax went into effect.) NOT HOW MANY PEOPLE ATE THEM.

This is certainly true, however it does not directly address the benefits of a junk food tax on society, and only makes clear there will be challenges towards implementing an effective policy, which is true for all policies. It is clear however from round one that many examples of sin taxes have been implemented successfully despite the interference of their respective industries and hence this likely to be the case for a more comprehensive junk food sin tax.
How do you know that it's going to be effective? You have no sources. The correct statement should've been "There will be challenges towards implementing an effective policy..." From round one, only Mexico, Hungary is debatable.


Firstly, his choice of expert opinion should be immediately rejected. A quick google search reveals that the American Beverage Association, if it weren't already obvious by the name is a "government lobbying group that represents the beverage industry in the United States". [3] Any unsubstantiated opinion coming from a spokesman of such a group is invariably riddled with bias. They have a direct incentive to stop any sort of tax which would reduce their sales.
Secondly, the claim that obesity is too complicated to solve via a junk food tax is completely unsubstantiated. Some studies even take an opposite stance. [4][5]
Finally, this topic has nothing to do with eliminating obesity. No one has made that claim. It is entirely to do with a junk food tax being a benefit to society. My arguments have addressed reducing obesity, which is likely to occur with reduced consumption of junk food and hence, a junk food tax being beneficial towards society.
1.
They are a non profit organization by a "simple google search". 
2.
Your first source is ok, but second source, it creates an "model" and doesn't even tell the readers what type of model it created, it literally just said it did. 
3.
Yes it does. I said it was too complicated, I could clarify if you wanted.

Firstly, I've already presented several studies on various implementations of taxes on food. I've presented several studies on sin taxes in general. I would argue that they aren't understudied at all.Secondly, even if I were to concede that such a tax is understudied, the studies otherwise provided have been promising and do not indicate any sort of significant risk. Con has not provided any evidences of risk and hence this point should be shelved until such a point otherwise.
Yes, one promising case, no, you shouldn't use plural. I have provided evidence, on how it would hurt the poor. 

Con concedes that junk food taxes reduce obesity/consumption of junk food.
I didn't concede, I just said, it's not worth putting a billion dollar industry at risk, and poverty for a mere 3.4% change, no conceding there fine sir.

Con argues that a junk food tax will make obese people poorer and that they will keep on buying junk food at a higher price. Whereas healthy food will remain at a high price as well.
Again, this argument seems to be mostly baseless conjecture. The studies provided from round one indicate that in general, there is a decrease in the amount of consumed junk food in response to a junk food tax. Additionally some studies have been shown that reinvesting the revenue from a junk food tax into healthy initiatives such as subsidising healthy foods is a promising avenue.
Oh really? Almost every source I have says something about the poor.  25 million people live in food deserts ( urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food.), and most of them are poor, therefore they have to buy unhealthy, convenient, and cheap junk food. US News describes a con like this:

"Far from being income-neutral, such taxes are regressive because their burden falls most heavily on people with the fewest options—the poor. Low-income households who continue to purchase goods that are sin-taxed will have even less money left over to spend on other items."

It effects the poor most, we need to aid the poor, not aid the obese rich. A study from 2014 proved that malnutrition was the bigger problem with 159 million toddlers, and obesity only effected 41 million.



Adding on to my Points:
Since I barely have any characters left, it's gonna be short.


Point 3-It's Unfair

I have a normal BMI and I just wanna buy a bag of chips, but why do I have to be taxed for some obese stranger who can't watch his weight? Why do I even have to give a crap? Why do I have be punished for a crime I didn't commit?

Point 2:

As I said in my rebuttals, such taxes like these are "Far from being income-neutral". So the poor WILL be effected
 

Published:
1. The Danish "fat tax"

Con argues that the Danish fat tax should still be considered.

Con however has not offered reasoning why it should still be considered. My original point stands. The Danish fat tax does not reasonably model the impacts of a junk food tax by extending outside of the parameters of a junk food tax and crossing into dietary staples such as meat, milk and butter.


Con argues that the fat tax is still debated, but that it probably didn't because the government repealed it.

Con provides no evidence in favour of his claims and my study still stands. Arguing that it probably didn't because the government repealed is fallacious reasoning. A government can do any manner of things it deems necessary whether or not the outcomes met the goals.



Con argues that purchasing products is not the same as consuming products

This is correct. However purchasing food items logically leads to consuming those food items later. And of course naturally, what you can eat is constrained by what you can acquire. Hence a reduction of purchasing goods directly leads to a reduction of consuming those goods




2. Advertising

Con questions the efficacy of a junk food tax implementation


I would direct Con to round one in which I have listed sources proving the efficacy of the general idea behind sin taxes and more specific sources related food taxation. I argue that because the idea of a junk food tax is so similar to these other examples of sin taxes that have been successful, so too will a junk food tax.




3. Complexity of obesity


Con notes that the American Beverage Association is a non-profit organization

This is irrelevant. The American Beverage Association being a non-profit organization does not preclude it's members from having biased agendas. Since the group is oriented around lobbying the government in the interest of US beverage companies, it is more than likely that it's members are more likely to be against any sort of tax that would reduce sales, because it is in this groups interests to do so. In addition, the quote is an opinionative statement that is not backed by facts, data or research and hence is irrelevant to Cons position.


Con notes that one of my sources is ok but takes issue with my second source

Con has not substantiated his assertion that obesity is too complicated to solve via a junk food tax.


Con reiterates that obesity is too complicated to eliminate, and is therefore relevant to this topic.

The thesis of this topic is "pro has to prove that JF tax is beneficial to society, Con has to prove it's not.". A junk food tax can be beneficial to society without eliminating obesity. Helping obesity is still beneficial to society in terms of public health and economics related to public health.


4. Understudied


Con accepts that I have provided some evidence and asserts that he has provided evidence on how such a tax would hurt the poor.

Con's argument was that such taxes are understudied, and hence present a risk. This is presumably due to any unknown factors that such a tax might present. Not only have I presented studies that show sin taxes are a well studied concept, I have also presented studies on specific implementations of various food taxes. Con has not denied that these studies do not indicate any risk. Apart from this, Con has argued that the taxes present a risk to the poor. And yet this is not an unknown risk such that Con argued might be present.


5. Berkeley and Hungary


Con expresses that he did not concede this point

Part of this debate is on whether or not junk food taxes work. By admitting that the junk food tax functionally reduces obesity and/or junk food intake and/or also increases healthy food intake, Con has conceded that a junk food tax functions in that regard.


6. Impact on economy


Con drops this point


7. Negative impact on the poor


Con argues that a junk food tax impacts the poor the most, especially those in food deserts where healthy food options may not be as readily available. Con also mentions that there should be an imperative to help the poor, not the rich.


One of the strongest points of sin taxes are their flexibilities to accommodate for differing needs. Take the various food taxes for example. All implementations shown in previous rounds have their own set of parameters from which they operate. This includes the variety of goods taxed, the amount that each good is taxed, the municipalities in which the law is applied and ways in which the tax revenue is spent. This means that a junk food tax can be tailor fit to meet the requirements of a given community.


This may mean that a junk food tax is not appropriate where there are a lack of alternatives. And yet this does not mean a junk food tax is detrimental to society at large. It simply means that, as previously noted, all policies have their challenges in effective implementation. For example, a junk food tax is still likely to be beneficial towards those living in food deserts if revenue from a junk food tax is used to provide options that previously weren't available. And as indicated earlier, a junk food tax is likely to be poverty reducing if healthier options are subsidised with revenue from the tax.


In regards to helping the poor, apart from a well-constructed junk food tax likely being poverty reducing, it should also be noted that the impoverished also tend to be more obese. Hence a junk food tax is entirely oriented around helping the poor, both in terms of wealth and health. In terms of malnutrition, indicating that there might be bigger problems than obesity does not negate the benefits of a junk food tax in society. 


8. It's unfair


Whether a policy is fair or unfair to an individual or group of individuals is not an argument to whether a policy is beneficial or detrimental to society at large. For example, progressive tax rates can be described to be unfair towards higher wage earners, and yet the impact of tax dollars resulting from said tax rates is one of the pillars from which governments improve societies from which the benefits are incalculable.



Round 4
Published:
This is correct. However purchasing food items logically leads to consuming those food items later. And of course naturally, what you can eat is constrained by what you can acquire. Hence a reduction of purchasing goods directly leads to a reduction of consuming those goods

I don't think you understand me. Of course there is a decrease of purchasing in the city, it's because people are GOING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, TO BUY THINGS. 

I would direct Con to round one in which I have listed sources proving the efficacy of the general idea behind sin taxes and more specific sources related food taxation. I argue that because the idea of a junk food tax is so similar to these other examples of sin taxes that have been successful, so too will a junk food tax.
Yes but junk food taxes are different. Just a simple chip bag isn't as harmful as a smoke of tobacco.

Con has not substantiated his assertion that obesity is too complicated to solve via a junk food tax.
Your headline does not match what you just said

The thesis of this topic is "pro has to prove that JF tax is beneficial to society, Con has to prove it's not.". A junk food tax can be beneficial to society without eliminating obesity. Helping obesity is still beneficial to society in terms of public health and economics related to public health.
Grammar error (I'm pretty sure you don't mean to help obesity"). I also messed up on the phrasing, I meant to say "it's too complicated to even hurt obesity".

Con's argument was that such taxes are understudied, and hence present a risk. This is presumably due to any unknown factors that such a tax might present. Not only have I presented studies that show sin taxes are a well studied concept, I have also presented studies on specific implementations of various food taxes. Con has not denied that these studies do not indicate any risk. Apart from this, Con has argued that the taxes present a risk to the poor. And yet this is not an unknown risk such that Con argued might be present.
Junk Food Taxes are once again... different from tobacco or alcohol, they might have different effects. There is a known risk and their might be more. How am I even supposed to know unknown risks. There is a reason that it is called "unknown".


Part of this debate is on whether or not junk food taxes work. By admitting that the junk food tax functionally reduces obesity and/or junk food intake and/or also increases healthy food intake, Con has conceded that a junk food tax functions in that regard.
I don't think you understand. What I meant was that even after hurting the poor so much, it only gives a little benefit. 


One of the strongest points of sin taxes are their flexibilities to accommodate for differing needs. Take the various food taxes for example. All implementations shown in previous rounds have their own set of parameters from which they operate. This includes the variety of goods taxed, the amount that each good is taxed, the municipalities in which the law is applied and ways in which the tax revenue is spent. This means that a junk food tax can be tailor fit to meet the requirements of a given community.
This may mean that a junk food tax is not appropriate where there are a lack of alternatives. And yet this does not mean a junk food tax is detrimental to society at large. It simply means that, as previously noted, all policies have their challenges in effective implementation. For example, a junk food tax is still likely to be beneficial towards those living in food deserts if revenue from a junk food tax is used to provide options that previously weren't available. And as indicated earlier, a junk food tax is likely to be poverty reducing if healthier options are subsidised with revenue from the tax.
Sources please. Yeah guess what, poor people make up 18 million  people, and that's just people living in deep poverty.


In regards to helping the poor, apart from a well-constructed junk food tax likely being poverty reducing, it should also be noted that the impoverished also tend to be more obese. Hence a junk food tax is entirely oriented around helping the poor, both in terms of wealth and health. In terms of malnutrition, indicating that there might be bigger problems than obesity does not negate the benefits of a junk food tax in society. 
How is it poor reducing if you increase the prices?

Whether a policy is fair or unfair to an individual or group of individuals is not an argument to whether a policy is beneficial or detrimental to society at large. For example, progressive tax rates can be described to be unfair towards higher wage earners, and yet the impact of tax dollars resulting from said tax rates is one of the pillars from which governments improve societies from which the benefits are incalculable.
You say so many things about the benefits, and how good it is. But don't actually list the benefits.





Published:
1. The Danish "fat tax"

Con maintains that the Danish "fat tax" shows indicates that people are likely to go outside of the city to purchase the relevant goods

Con has dropped points relating to the relevancy of the Danish "fat tax" and also the success of the targeted goal of junk food taxes (concession in 5. Berkeley and Hungary, Round one). As ancillary reasoning towards these conclusions, this point is no longer relevant. For completeness however, I would refer to the Philadelphia soda tax case study where consumption remains lower overall.


2. Advertising

Con asserts that junk food is not as harmful as other products targetted by sin taxes, and hence a junk food tax can not be modelled after other sin taxes.

Con has dropped points relating to the efficacy of junk food taxes (concession in 5. Berkeley and Hungary, Round one). Hence ancillary arguments relating to whether or not junk food taxes actually function are irrelevant. For completeness, I would refer back to the case studies of successful food taxes as given in Round one and also the studies that indicate the success of junk food taxes.


3. Complexity of obesity

Con has redefined his original position as junk food being too complicated to even hurt obesity.

Likewise as before, if Con wishes to substantiate his claim, the floor is his. My position will be the same as outlined in round one.


4. Understudied

It can be said that all things have unknown risk. To label all things detrimental to society is absurd. One would need to make a reasonable argument as to the presence and likelihood of these unknown risks. Con is unable to substantiate his claim of unknown risks. Previous studies and implementations do not indicate any sort of future unknown risk and Con's claim is baseless.


5. Berkeley and Hungary

Con reaffirms his concession that junk food taxes functionally reduce obesity/junk food intake and increase healthy food intake.


7. Negative impact on the poor

There are two ways that a junk food tax can be considered to be poor reducing. 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.

All claims are backed by previous sources. If Con thinks a specific claim has been left unsourced, he should specifically point out a statement instead of blanketly asking for sources


8. It's unfair

The benefits of a junk food tax may be found listed in round one. Summarily, a junk food tax is likely to shape consumer choices in regards to positive dietary food choices. In turn, because obesity and other non-transmissible diet related diseases are significantly impacted by poor dietary food choices, a positive change in these choices are likely to lead to positive changes in the prevalence of these diseases. I argue that this change, an increase in general health is beneficial to the society in general and hence the resolution.



Round 5
Published:
I'm sorry,  I have to waive this round because of work.
Published:
Passing because I can
Added:
--> @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."
#20
Added:
--> @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.
#19
Added:
--> @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
*******************************************************************
#18
Added:
--> @Virtuoso, @Ramshutu
The vote?
Instigator
#17
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @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.
#16
Added:
--> @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.
#15
Added:
--> @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.
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Okay
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @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.
#12
Added:
--> @dustryder
Good luck! I'm excited to see someone who won't forfeit this whole debate.
#11
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I was saying they were mainly trolls. Yes, a joke.
#10
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
That was a joke right?
I don't get what you meant.
Not the CCJ part.
#9
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
His name was CommanderCornJuice, my good sir.
#8
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Commander corn? (Understand who it is)
Was it supposed to be ironic as in I would debate them?
#7
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
You mean you'll debate someone who isn't commander corn juice, crossed, or billbatard?
#6
No votes yet