CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
8
Horrible Amazing
Debate Score:34
Arguments:21
Total Votes:37
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Horrible (13)
 
 Amazing (7)

Debate Creator

wolverinetre(238) pic



New York Mayor Banning Large Sugar Filled Drinks

How is this even happening? Why stop there? Let's ban pizza, chocolate, muffins, tasty cakes, and every other bad thing on this Earth!

 

It all comes down to this, and I have yet to see someone answer it: What gives you the right to dictate what someone eats/drinks?

Horrible

Side Score: 26
VS.

Amazing

Side Score: 8

Thank god the government is there to make my choices easer. I don't think I could say no to large sodas without them. Thank you government for all the laws you pass to protect me from myself, may you continue to grow and make me a better person.

That was sarcasm in case you didn't catch it.

Side: Horrible
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

Sure, but:

Thank god the government is there to make my choices easer. I don't think I could say no to crack/making bombs in basements/marijuanna/shooting my neighbor/meth/etc without them. Thank you government for all the laws you pass to protect me from myself, may you continue to grow and make me a better person.

It's not a matter of something being banned. Most have no problem banning things other people do.

Obviously the Wovertine(sp) is exaggerating the position because it fits into the right-wing "evil socialist liberal" scenario Fox and others need to perpetrate in order to keep the stupid voting republican. In reality it's just a way to put healthier versions of sugary drinks on the shelf. No one is getting arrested and there aren't any health police monitoring the cookie isle of the supermarket.

Is it such a bad thing we ask companies to put less sugar in their drinks? When over 30% of the country is obese and obviously not willing to do shit about it themselves for the past several decades, I don't think it's the end of the world.

Side: Amazing
5 points

You're precisely correct; banning these large, unhealthy sodas would probably make America more healthy.

But it comes down to such a simple question that I'm sure you've already read: Why do you have the right to force me not to drink what I want? I can drive a car (not yet, still applying for my permit), I can shoot myself in the head, and I can't drink sugary drinks?

Side: Horrible
2 points

"Is it such a bad thing we ask companies to put less sugar in their drinks? "

There is nothing wrong with asking, but that is not what they are doing, is it?!

There might be a large number of people in America who are over weight but there isn't a proven direct link between large sodas and obesity. Is the government going to make it illegal to eat a large portion of food, or over 40 carbs per meal (which turn into sugar in your body) or to eat without exercising, or to eat to close to bed time (all of which contribute to weight gain.

What if a family went to the movies and wanted a large soda to share (which is cheaper then buying two of a smaller size) the government is actually forcing that family to pay more for their soda then they would have, is that fair?

Side: Horrible

New York Mayor is an idiot.

Side: Horrible
2 points

I have to say this is really sad to see someone saying that people can't drink what they want. So are we only going to be able to buy coke in single serving containers one at a time at the store? Maybe they will put vending machines in everybodys home and you will get ration cards to use in it. Hey, we just created a whole new black market industry!

This really is crazy!

Side: Horrible
1 point

Fizzy drinks are a mostly harmless substance where the good parts outweigh the bad parts.

If you wanted to ban something ban something that has a strong negative effect on people, alcohol, for instance.

Before you ban good things ban bad things.

Side: Horrible
1 point

The role of government should never be about protecting us from ourselves.

Side: Horrible
1 point

It's official. New Yorkers have now admitted they are too stupid to decide, on their own, what size cup to pour Mr. Pibb into.

Side: Horrible

Reading these arguments I really didn't know what side to settle on. I eventually decided to go with my initial opinion. We as a society should survive on survival of the fittest. If you want to drink the bad stuff that could kill you, do it, but the people who have the sense not to won't. The government should not be stopping people from drinking sugary soda, because they haven't stopped people from smoking cigarettes, or from spending $500 (that go almost completely to the government) on them.

I won't drink soda with a bag of sugar in it, but if an idiot wants to go for it and the government shouldn't be aloud to stop you.

Side: Horrible

Kids like soda and it makes them happy, so, I don't believe in taking their happiness away.

Side: Horrible
1 point

Well it's not horrible. But it's sort of hypocritical to manufacture outrage depending strictly on the level to which something "bad for you" ought to be banned. I mean, the majority of those who've whipped themselves into a frenzy over various legislature limiting sugar around the country, are the same who will vote to keep marijuana illegal every time.

As you state in the argument, I could as easily say "oh my god! they're banning crack! what next? pizza and muffins?"

The majority of those spewing fear of "socialism" in the food market have no problem with "socialized" rules regarding other things that are "bad for your." Granted it's nothing to do with socialism or anything of the sort, but speaking on a moronic right-wing level.

So, those complaining about something being banned, aren't actually complaining about something being banned, their repeating the rage they hear in right wing media, they're raging about a particular thing being banned whilst having no problem with things they personally don't do anyway being banned.

Okay, I get it. People feel they should be free to choose. The hypocrisy is when "freedom to choose" only extends so far as the things they want to choose. If it's something someone else would choose they not only are for banning it, but would happily enforce it spending untold tax dollars to do so. For example drugs and abortion.

I say, if you want to drink bullshit and be a fat fuck, buy some sugar at the store and dump it in your diet coke. So long as health care is a shared cost (it is, and has been for decades), so long as Americans keep getting fatter and fatter (they are), I have no problem with steps being taken to curb this glutinous behavior. If one is insistent on 5 teaspoons of sugar in their soda instead of one, fine, go buy some sugar and put it in yourself. No one is proposing anyone be monitored, just that the companies selling these things take more responsibility for the health of their customers.

Side: Amazing
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
2 points

Your first five paragraphs operated on a fallacy. One that I'm sure you already understand to be a fallacy.

So I'll just work on your last paragraph which actually attempted to explain why a ban on selling sugary drinks should be allowed:

if you want to drink bullshit and be a fat fuck, buy some sugar at the store and dump it in your diet coke.

Why put them through an obstacle to get what they want? If you believe they should be allowed to drink regular coke, why put restrictions that hurt businesses that attempt to gain consumers by providing them with the products they want?

So long as health care is a shared cost (it is, and has been for decades), so long as Americans keep getting fatter and fatter (they are), I have no problem with steps being taken to curb this glutinous behavior.

You have no problem with steps even though already you say that it should be okay for, as you say, "fat fucks," to spend more money just to get what they want and counter-act your genius plan that will help cut down healthcare costs and lower the obesity epidemic?

just that the companies selling these things take more responsibility for the health of their customers.

My health is just fine, and I like to eat things that may not be considered health by people like you... but why is it that I should have to go through such hassles just to enjoy myself? You see, this reminds me of what you were saying about drugs, which, hell, why not bring it up?

Why should the government have any authority to monitor what we do to ourselves? I suppose this whole time you DID support bans on certain drugs because they can be health damaging at times. Or is it that you are just as hypocritical as your anti-drug comrades? You support these restrictions and bans on unhealthy food while they support restrictions and bans on unhealthy substances. Meanwhile, people like me who like to indulge in unhealthy foods and substances becomes a victim of you and your comrades who love to judge the rest of us for our undesirable lifestyles...

Side: Horrible

Personally, I don't buy big sugary drinks just because they're there, but because of how they're marketed and priced. I'd rather see rules forcing franchises to use a set cost per volume of drink, and be able to sell at whatever cost they want, whatever size they want, and all that. If it wasn't 5c, or 10p, or 20 Rs, for twice as much soda or whatever, I know I wouldn't buy it, I only buy it because it almost seems a waste not to. This would force smaller drinks to be cheaper, and allow people to actually choose the size of drink they want.

Side: Amazing
1 point

Amazing decision because it is time that the government step in and tell its people what they can and cant drink.

Side: Amazing
1 point

This is a good idea as it helps keep america healthy. I wish other cities did this as well.

Side: Amazing
TennesseeRed(2) Disputed
1 point

Do you, honestly, for one second, actually think limiting the size of Coke Cups is going to solve obesity in New York, or any other city dumb enough to enact such a silly law? How many heart attacks do you think will be avoided? Please... I really would like to know... Just guess how many lives this will save annually.

Side: Horrible

Amazing. This whole debate is amazing, incredible. So, this is an attempt for government to control our choices? Banning Large Sugar filled drinks is hurting big businesses. Meaning big businesses profited from our getting fat or diabetes. But one would say, they are simply giving us what we want. Is it?

Large Sugar filled drinks is way to maintain the population satisfied for longer period of time. It is among the other pleasures and superficial necessities they sell us to spare us the trouble of thinking and the pains of living. They make free will less useful and less frequent. They confine our free will in a smaller space rather. They do not break our freedom of choice but softens it, in order to bend and direct it. They do not tyrannize. They hinder, compress, extinguish and finally reduce each and one of us to nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which they are the shepherd.

So, is banning sugar filled drinks really an attack on our freedom of choice? Think about it.

I mean this ban is useless. It will only make us angry like kids when their candies are taken away from them. They try to keep us in perpetual childhood.

But hey, one thing we all wanted was an unlimited economic liberty. So, banning this goes against our economic liberty.

Side: Amazing