CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Was a New York court right to strike down a ban on sugary drinks?
Another court ruling has taken the fizz out of New York City's ban on big, sugary sodas. A New York appeals court on Tuesday ruled that the city Board of Health exceeded its legal authority and acted unconstitutionally when it tried to put a size limit on soft drinks served in city restaurants.
"The Board of Health overstepped the boundaries of its lawfully delegated authority," the court said in its decision.
The state Supreme Court Appellate Division, with its opinion, upheld an earlier ruling that stopped the ban from taking effect in March. The rule would stop many eateries from selling non-diet soda and other sugar-laden beverages in containers bigger than 16 ounces.
They're taking a step forward in trying to make America healthy. I don't see any problem with it. Nobody needs to be drinking soda out of a bucket-sized cup anyways.
Last time I was in New York, I went to this place that donated $1 to fight diabetes when you bought a 32 gallon bucket of soda. Why would anyone want to prevent that?
Personally, I think we're heading towards a future where the majority of the U.S. will be overweight. Thirteen states are expected to reach obesity rates of over sixty percent by 2030. Something as small as capping fast food soda sizes could make a big difference.
Even still, if the government is suppose to be of the people, and the people want to kill themselves on fizzy soft drinks, what right do they have to stop them?
I don't know anyone who wants to be fat... nor do I know anyone who wants their health destroyed by soft drinks. They'll still have soda, they just won't have 16 oz cup's at fast food restaurants. The more food you have, the more food you're going to eat.
They don't want to be fat, but some don't care. So on the issue of being unhealthy they take no active stance on, they couldn't care one way or the other. As for enjoying their soft drinks, they actively take a position on that, that position being in favor of the outrageously large portions. Whether they shouldn't or should drink them is of no concern, the concern is that they have the right to have it, and the government shouldn't have the right to take it.
Obesity could cost us over $550 billion dollars in the next two decades. Getting rid of a 16 oz soda can change that. It's just a soda size! They aren't going to ban soda or fast food completely. You've got to ask yourself, what is more important... the future of our nation or a 16 oz soda?
People should make their own decisions, if we as a society chose to have a government that makes decisions for us, we will never learn to be self efficient. If someone buys a sugary drink, it is only effecting themselves, nobody else, so why should we be concerned?
This is just another example of the state invading the right of individual liberty over choice. There is no need to do so. This may even hinder sales for companies that profit from selling large sodas. The state is just being a nanny.
It is the deprivation of liberty. Taking away the choices that the state has no business to. A man should be able to voluntarily purchase a soda larger than 16oz from any local provider he deems fit and well enough to suit his demands. When that option is taken away you are using coercion to control the populace's body types to which the populace should has total control of as long as they only control their own individual bodies. The state has no business intervening in business affairs and the health of the public if the public wishes to do this to themselves.
I don't see the big deal. It's not like soda is being banned. Plus, most restaurants give free refills anyways. People who really want that much soda can buy two sodas, which will actually help out the business.
People buy soda because they like the taste, but they tend to forget just how unhealthy it really is. It has zero nutritional value and it's as corrosive to your enamel as battery acid. I just can't see how it is a bad thing that the government is showing some concern for our health.
I understand you. However, you are missing the critical point in mu argument. It is the deprivation over the liberty of personal and individual choice. The state is using coercion to force the public to drink in a manner it deems fit. Simply because the state thinks people show drink to their liking doesn't mean that we must. It impede your liberty to purchase.
You do realize, that in a way, the fast food industry is basically killing their customers, right? They abuse our trust. If the government tried to cut down the amount of pollution, would you argue that it is the deprivation of choice to not allow a company to pollute the air? Obesity is steadily rising. I believe I heard in the news not too long ago that the majority of Mississippi is overweight. At this rate, America is heading toward a future of fat people. It will be a truly sad day when the majority of American's are overweight. It's clear that neither the fast food chains nor the customers are going to try and find a remedy for this issue, so the government needs to step in.
You do realize, that in a way, the fast food industry is basically killing their customers, right?
Not at all. The choice is up to the consumer not the producer.
They abuse our trust.
How? They make a product and people purchase it with the foreknowledge of it's affects. It does not involuntarily affect us. It is a voluntary action.
the government tried to cut down the amount of pollution, would you argue that it is the deprivation of choice to not allow a company to pollute the air?
That is completely different. Air pollution would be involuntary
The public would not want it. However, with soda that is a voluntary purchase which the state should not interfere in.
Obesity is steadily rising.
That is the fault of the people. Not the fast food companies. They do not force us to purchase their products. We choose. It is our right to choose.
It's clear that neither the fast food chains nor the customer's are going to try and find a remedy for this issue, so the government needs to step in.
That is absolutely false. Fast food companies are already finding methods to make their food healthier. Places like subway for example always advertise the healthy quality of their food. At the same time many people within the public exercise and their are many people selling exercise videos. The state has no business regulating what a person may eat or drink unless it harms more people than the individual. People can always choose to exercise of not. People cannot choose to remove pollution from the air. That is the difference. Air pollution is not something the population causes. Obesity, in most cases, is. It is a voluntary thing. Air pollution is in voluntary.
Not at all. The choice is up to the consumer not the producer.
But they use certain techniques to lure in the customer. Like for example, they use the color red to stimulate your appetite. Think of how many fast food restaurants have the color red in their logo. Techniques like this are good for business but bad for the customers, because they're actually messing with your brain. Before you know it, you're eating a meal that contains "putty and cosmetic petrochemicals".
How? They make a product and people purchase it with the foreknowledge of it's affects. It does not involuntarily affect us. It is a voluntary action.
Did you know that they do not have to legally list trans-fats if the food contains less than 0.5 grams of it? Trans-fats aren't healthy. Denmark has actually banned the sale of products containing trans-fat in their country. How often do you pay attention to the nutrition label on your fast food? I'm sure you, like most people, buy a meal knowing it is unhealthy... but not really knowing why it is unhealthy.
That is completely different. Air pollution would be involuntary
The public would not want it. However, with soda that is a voluntary purchase which the state should not interfere in.
You don't think the people who pollute the air know what they're doing? Driving your car is voluntary. Just like fast food, your positive options are very limited.
That is absolutely false. Fast food companies are already finding methods to make their food healthier. Places like subway for example always advertise the healthy quality of their food. At the same time many people within the public exercise and their are many people selling exercise videos. The state has no business regulating what a person may eat or drink unless it harms more people than the individual. People can always choose to exercise of not. People cannot choose to remove pollution from the air. That is the difference. Air pollution is not something the population causes. Obesity, in most cases, is. It is a voluntary thing. Air pollution is in voluntary.
Is Subway really healthy? I doubt they are any healthier than other sub restaurants.
It is true that many people exercise, but not enough... and fast food sales greatly exceed that of exercise videos.
You have to remember that the laws that the government puts into effect, applies to them as well.
But they use certain techniques to lure in the customer. Like for example, they use the color red to stimulate your appetite. Think of how many fast food restaurants have the color red in their logo. Techniques like this are good for business but bad for the customers, because they're actually messing with your brain. Before you know it, you're eating a meal that contains "putty and cosmetic petrochemicals".
Marketing is marketing. Resistance to marketing is always an option. If you choose to eat something that is your right.
Did you know that they do not have to legally list trans-fats if the food contains less than 0.5 grams of it? Trans-fats aren't healthy.
I am aware. However, you are still placing restrictions on the liberties of the populace and the company. The state has no business doing so.
Should we ban all soda because water is better? Should we ban cigarettes because not smoking is so much better? Should we ban alcohol because it is harmful? Should we ban hamburgers because turkey burgers are better? Should we ban fried foods because baked foods are better? No. All of these are options selectable by voluntary action by the individual. The state is simply acting as an aggressor and trying to control the populace.
You don't think the people who pollute the air know what they're doing? Driving your car is voluntary. Just like fast food, your positive options are very limited.
Your initial statement of air pollution focused on companies air pollution. Not the pollution of the public. Cars are being made better and better anyways. That is not a problem.
Marketing is marketing. Resistance to marketing is always an option. If you choose to eat something that is your right.
True, but like I said before... people don't really know what they're getting themselves into.
Should we ban all soda because water is better? Should we ban cigarettes because not smoking is so much better? Should we ban alcohol because it is harmful? Should we ban hamburgers because turkey burgers are better? Should we ban fried foods because baked foods are better? No. All of these are options selectable by voluntary action by the individual. The state is simply acting as an aggressor and trying to control the populace.
I can drive 10 miles down my nearest highway and I will see all fast food restaraunts, with the exception of a few different local restaraunts. The options that are provided to our communities aren't good.
Your initial statement of air pollution focused on companies air pollution. Not the pollution of the public. Cars are being made better and better anyways. That is not a problem.
Do you own a hybrid vehicle? Do you know many people who do? I actually don't know anyone who owns a hybrid. The fact of the matter is, you could ride a bike but driving is easier. You could pack your lunch, but buying a dollar cheeseburger is easier. Fast food chains feed off of our laziness and impatience.
True, but like I said before... people don't really know what they're getting themselves into.
They do. All I have to say is that this burger is not healthy at all. In fact they have the internet in their hands. No excuse. It should be left up to the consumer to decide. Everybody does not exceed the size of a 16oz soda.
I can drive 10 miles down my nearest highway and I will see all fast food restaraunts, with the exception of a few different local restaraunts. The options that are provided to our communities aren't good.
That doesn't help your case. You are in favor for the state to act as am aggressor and make decision for the public as if we were a mere simulation. Each person is born with inalienable rights in America. Liberty is a right found universally. It is the ability to make choices. Placing restrictions on that will bring the nation into a parental state. This statement you have provided does not help your case.
Do you own a hybrid vehicle
No. Our family either drives an electric vehicle or rides a bike so what is your point? We choose to because we have the liberty to. Are you going to be in favor of restrictions on that as well? Do you wish to know the name of my car?
Do you know many people who do?
In fact I do. Every since my sister became so environmentally oriented we noticed more and more hybrid vehicle being driven. Many Prii (plural for multiple prius) , many Nissan Leafs, etc.
actually don't know anyone who owns a hybrid. The fact of the matter is, you could ride a bike but driving is easier. You could pack your lunch, but buying a dollar cheeseburger is easier. Fast food chains feed off of our laziness and impatience.
That is their marketing strategy. Are you going to kill a business that makes money off of that because people made bad decisions? Let's tell Sony that they must hold back the PS4 because kids will be distracted from their homework. They will not care. They are a business. If you make that poor decision thats on you. You make the choice. Not the business.
Do you think limiting the soda size will reduce soda consumption? I think it will. When people are given more food, they eat more. Anti-obesity ads aren't going to do shit. The only way to fix this problem is for the government to intervene.
You still are favoring restrictions upon the liberty of business and choice of the people. No excuse can be made. It should be left up to the individual to control their health.
I wouldn't be opposed to the government regulating fast food. We're going through an obesity epidemic. That to me sounds like a good excuse to take action. It would be for the good of the nation... but back to the main point, which is the removal of a soda size... something that people really shouldn't be complaining about because it makes them sound like a bunch of fat morons (no offense). If it is really that big of a deal, then go grab a bucket out of your garage and fill it up with soda and drink out of it. This isn't the first thing the government has ever put a cap on and it won't be the last. So you can either realize the problem and accept the solution, propose alternate solutions or fight for your right to stuff your face full of unhealthy shit that probably should have never existed in the first place.
I wouldn't be opposed to the government regulating fast food. We're going through an obesity epidemic. That to me sounds like a good excuse to take action. It would be for the good of the nation
Removing the freedom of choice is never good for a nation. You are still favoring the restriction of liberty.
something that people really shouldn't be complaining about because it makes them sound like a bunch of fat morons (no offense).
They have a legitimate reason. Why must the state be allowed to aggress against the liberty of the populace? Soda size should be a choice everybody has.
If it is really that big of a deal, then go grab a bucket out of your garage and fill it up with soda and drink out of it.
Or they can just remove this coercive restriction.
This isn't the first thing the government has ever put a cap on and it won't be the last.
I am aware that the state is composed of elites who run the nation the way they deem fit. Reform needs to take place. Everybody is not obese. Every doesn't have to suffer. It is the deprivation of liberty over such a simple thing.
So you can either realize the problem and accept the solution, propose alternate solutions or fight for your right to stuff your face full of unhealthy shit that probably should have never existed in the first place.
Bullshit!! This is a coercive law. It impedes common, traditional business practices. This is theft of liberty. Liberty of business and consumer. You are fighting for a parental state which will never end well for people will enter a state of rebellion the more the state aggressess against its own people. Placing restrictions on soda size is utter bullshit. That is a choice an individual should be able to make. The state has no right and no business placing its nose in the business of an individual. You seem to not even care about the liberty of the public or liberty in general.
Removing the freedom of choice is never good for a nation. You are still favoring the restriction of liberty.
I favor a healthier nation.
They have a legitimate reason. Why must the state be allowed to aggress against the liberty of the populace? Soda size should be a choice everybody has.
You act like this is an example of tyranny.
Or they can just remove this coercive restriction.
Then how are we going to fix our obesity problem? Other countries are taking measures to prevent it, so what do we do? Sit on the sidelines and hope our people come to their senses?
Bullshit!! This is a coercive law. It impedes common, traditional business practices. This is theft of liberty. Liberty of business and consumer. You are fighting for a parental state which will never end well for people will enter a state of rebellion the more the state aggressess against its own people. Placing restrictions on soda size is utter bullshit. That is a choice an individual should be able to make. The state has no right and no business placing its nose in the business of an individual. You seem to not even care about the liberty of the public or liberty in general.
I'm not arguing for a parental state, I'm arguing for a reform of the fast food industry.
I act as if it is an infliction upon liberty. Which is true.
Then how are we going to fix our obesity problem? Other countries are taking measures to prevent it, so what do we do? Sit on the sidelines and hope our people come to their senses?
If people make bad decisions then so be it.
I'm not arguing for a parental state, I'm arguing for a reform of the fast food industry.
Well I am arguing the liberty of choice. We are not on the same page.
$550 billion dollars. That's about how much obesity will cost us in the next two decades if we continue at the current rate. Something as small as taking away a 16 oz soda from the fast food menu can change that.
Like America will go into a total state of damnation. Be fucking realistic. I am in favor for the preservation of individual liberty. Those sites only base it off of current growth rates yet we never know how the future will turn out.
Is $550 billion dollars a small amount? No. The current growth rates aren't going to slow down unless something is done to interfere with it... like get rid of 16 oz sodas. Nothing else has to change. Changing one little thing can have a big impact. You should now realize that it is just as much an economical issue as it is a health issue. I can almost guarantee that when America's population becomes mostly overweight, our liberty is going to be affected much more than just a ban on 16 oz sodas.
