California should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.

Hello again!First of all, I would like to refute/rejoind my opponents' points. Then, if space allows, I will bring up new arguments. To make this debate easy to understand, for my refutations/rejoinders, I have made the opposition side in bold, and the proposition side italic. Please also know that (2) means the second round. Thank you!Proposition: Point #1 is "Americans are becoming obese."Opposition: Banning certain sizes of soda is not the correct solvency. (People can go back for seconds....) The solvency instead, is to place a tax on the sugary drinks. With the money earned, the government can spend money on more important things in life, such as the educational system. (The government can use the money to teach kids about good healthy eating ways. Proposition (2): Schools already doing that, but it does not stop adults from drinking sugary drinks.Opposition (2): The realiazation is that these kids have not yet become adults, so they have not had a chance to prove what they have learned. I would like to also mention that we arn't trying to STOP people from drinking sugary drinks, instead, drinking saftley. Proposition: Point #2 is "Sugary Dinks lead to health probelms."Opposition: However, this argumen is non-unique as it can happen anywhere, with anything, to anyone. Eating too much rice leads to a negativly affected back.Too much weightlifting could injure your arms. Too much reading can hurt your eyes. Obviously, this also applies to sugary drinks, and also everything else in the world. Tying into the proposition's third point, they mentioned such "health choices" such as Iced Coffee, but Iced Coffee is not a healthy choice as the result of caffeine. Proposition (2): They said to my second point that health problems can happen anywhere, not just sugary drinks. According to (http://www.livestrong.com.........) in the article Health Problems and Soft Drinks, it states that soft drinks cause tooth decay, obesity, and other health problems.Opposition (2): The propostion has not directly rejoined, as in their Prop. 2, they only showed statistics that soft drinks do cause health probelms. They did not refute the point made that their second argument is non-unique.Proposition: Point #3 is "Healthy alternatives are available."Opposition: My opponent's third point was that healthy alternatives are available. Unfortunatly, it does not make an impact whether there are healthy choices or not. There are already lots of healthy alternatives, with or without sugary drinks, and either way, they won't work if they aren't enforced. Thus, this argument that the Proposition side makes has no ground. Again, as an example, Iced Coffee was included. Iced Coffee is unhealthy because of all the caffeine affecting your brain and so is not a healthy choice at all. Proposition (2): They said to my third point that it is not impacted, so I will impact it now. My third point is trying to say that there are other healthy alternatives that are available, and not as expensive, such as water. Water is very healthy for you, and it does not make you become obese.Opposition (2): The proposition commented on how that water, an healthy alternative, is not as expensive. However, in some places that is the exact opposite. In the middle of the desert, for ex. Utah, water is an unavailable resource that cannot be easily retrieved and must be bought. Additionally, the Proposition has dropped the fact about their mentioning of Iced Coffee. Proposition: Point #4 is "It's an expense that people don't need to spend."Opposition: My opponent's fourth point was that "It's an expense that people don't need to spend". First of all, it should be an individual's choice of what to do. Additionally, the money is keeping our economy circulating. At this time, we cannot have a worse economy. Proposition (2): They said to my fourth point that it's the people's choice. It is their choice, we are just limiting the amount that they drinks. We are not saying that they can never drink soft drinks anymore, we are just changing it so that the amount that you drink is a healthy amount for your body. Since it is the government's duty to protect its citizens, we should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.Opposition (2): My opponent has stated that it's still the people's choice, just a bit more limited. However, a individual's choice isn't as free if there are limits. On top of this, they have mentioned that it is the government's duty to protect it's citizens. But it is also the government's duty to make sure their citizens are happy. By limiting freedom, by placing a limit on choices, citizens will not be happy at all. I would like to comment that they have dropped the refutation of economy. Opposition: Point #1 "Banning Sugary Drinks Violates the People's Freedom."Proposition (2):Their first point is that Banning Sugary Drinks Violates The People's Freedom. If we follow along to what they are saying, taxing sugary drinks is also taking away people's Pursuit of Happiness, because they don't want to pay a tax on their sugary drinks.Opposition (2): Of course, there is a limit to freedom. However, the limit does NOT INCLUDE CHOICES. Choices will and cannot be denied. On top of this, taxing will not take away the pursuit of happiness because it gives back directly to the people, by adding conveniences such as better roads and education. Opposition: Point #2 "Adopting The Ban On Sugary Drinks Hurts The Economy/The Opposition's Plan (mentioned above) Helps The Economy."Proposition (2): Their second point is that Adopting The Ban On Sugary Drinks Hurts The Economy. They said that helping the economy is more important then obesity matters. Unfortunately, if all people become obese, half of them would probably die, and half would be to obese to do any work, so the economy would fail anyways. And since lives are the most important things in this debate, I strongly urge a proposition ballet. Opposition (2): Their refutation can be used both ways. Without a good economy, one cannot have the nessasary materials to have a good healthy life. On top of this, the money earned from taxing could also be used to fund Medicare, Medicade, and other medical resources. Opposition: Plan; The counter plan would be that instead of banning sugary drinks, the govenrment would pass a law that would add 1cent of tax per 1 ounce. Thus, a 8 ounce can of sugary drinks would cost the original price and original tax, plus and 8 cent extra tax. This way, the government would not only make money, but it would also help decrease the amount of obesity in today's America. Proposition (2):They said that adding a tax would decrease the amount of obesity, but it's not like people that usually drink sugary drinks are going to stop drinking their normal amount because they have to pay 1 cent per ounce.Opposition (2): First of all, the Proposition has not provided a plan, thus, by defult we would go with the opposition's counter plan. On top of this, the proposition also impacted how charging 1 cent per ounce will not change the obesity rate. However, the realization is that with the money earned, we can heal not only obesity, but also other medical probelms such as cancer! We can SAVE LIVES, and lives are the most important thing in this debate. Additionally, they dropped the fact that the counter plan would help the economy. Unfortunatly, I won't be able to bring up any more points because I don't have enough space, and it won't be fare for the Proposition team if I bring up any more points. Have a nice day!Thank you!