This House believes that the United States Federal Government should add probiotics to all candy.

I will go line by line based on what my opponent has said in his previous speech. My opponent makes two premature statements. The first is that because the 20% of people over 65 with diabetes aren't "the average person," they should be disregarded entirely. I never said they should be disregarded. In fact, I never even disregarded them. I simply stated that 20% of people is not the average person and that is it. Our government will be spending our money engineering this candy diarrhea medicine that 20% of the purchasing population can't even use. That is a waste of taxpayers' money. First, they will be able to use it because 90% of them suffer from hypoglycmia, low blood sugar levels. This is because of the medicine they take that drops their blood sugar too low on diabetes medication. They will be able to use it. The second premature claim my opponent makes is that 90% of elderly people have hypoglycemia, and this candy can get their blood sugar levels back on track. First of all, that statistic is not true. Secondly, even if it were true, low blood sugar is an acute happening. This statistic is true. (Pathophysiology by Mcance & Heuther, 2006)If acute happening means almost never happens, that is entirely untrue. 90% is a super majority. You can't expect people to be thinking about their blood sugar attacks and their digestive system at the same time. With this plan, they wouldn't have to because as I stated, the candy would help their problems with diarrhea, digestive issues, and would spike their blood sugar levels to the appropriate levels. (Viegas, Jennifer. "Candy Canes Fight Germs, Settle Stomachs". )My opponent then argues that some candy has minor medical benefits. For starters, he gives no research to back up these statements. ---->(Viegas, Jennifer. "Candy Canes Fight Germs, Settle Stomachs". ) (Scholey, Andrew. "Chewing Gum Found to Increase Brain Power". ) Also, if mint is already beneficial to the digestive system, then why would we waste money putting something beneficial to the digestive system in it? It's pretty simple: we wouldn't. Well, actually constipation and diarrhea are a bowel problem not a digestive problem. . http://www.webmd.com...; My opponent's first and fourth point about children contradict each other. First, he says that children will be healthier by not eating candy because it's medicine. These two statements are not contradicting. As noted by my opponent, there will be children who will eat the healthy candy. So in response, I stated that of children were to still eat the candy, they would not suffer from diarrhea. This is not a contradicting statement. It is a statement that proves that it would even benefint the minority and majority. First, I proved that children eat yogurt, which has probiotics in it, debunking my opponent's claim that children will stop eating candy. My opponent concedes to this. I will concede to this statement. Second, I explained (and will explain further) in my contention about the elderly that the unhealthy factors in candy (fat, calories, sugar, etc. ) far outweigh the benefits. First, in the fourth and second round, you never specifically state anything aboout calories, fat, and sugar. All you say is this. He proposes this solution, paying no mind to the fact 20 percent of Americans over the age of 65 have diabetes[3]. On top of that, in a medical study, when 143 people at an average age of 63 were given candy and told to memorize words, the results came back substatially less fruitful[4]. My opponent wants to give food that is detrimental to the health of the elderly. .. to the elderly. The disadvantages simply outweigh the benefits. I have stated earlier that mints , a type of candy, in fact helps boost memory and candy is beneficial to diabetics, who mostly suffer from hypoglycima, low blood sugar. In Round 2, I explained that funding an entire administration to mandate probiotics in candy would cause a significant increase in taxes. My opponent refures this with no more than one sentence. "The money would come from the money they would spend on medicine for diarrhea. " That money money has to come from somewhere. And the only place the government can get extra money is by raising taxes. We already have two agencies that deal with health: the FDA and the CDC. This plan wouldn't cost an extreme amount of money. This money would be coming from the money we would have spent on diarrhea medicine. This sentence is incoherent. It suggests that we'll get money. .. from money. It in no way refutes the fact that a national mandate of this magnitude has to be funded somehow, and raising taxes is the only significant way to do this. This mandate will raise taxes, end of story. My opponent has completely misinterpreted this statement in the essence, What I was trying to say is that we will receive the money for this plan from money we would save on buying diarrhea medicine. I'm saying plain and simple that forcing a business to put a specific ingredient in their product is unconstitutional. He tries to refute this by saying that mandating probiotics in candy is constitutional because it betters the public health, which I have already proven to be false. Either way, his refutation does not properly address my argument. Government is constitutionally barred from telling businesses what to do unless it is an absolute necessity to ensure public safety. We are not dying due to lack of probiotics, so this is not a matter of public safety at all. This is entirely untrue. First example would be with fast food companies. They were forced to label their fast foods. This was not because we were "dying to a lack of information". It was because the information could be used to better one's health. The common person does know and doesn't need to be told that a hanburger is unhealthy. It is obvious (if this needs to be supported with evidence, a documentary Fat Head). His entire argument that the government has no power to enforce such rules is not true. I urge a pro ballot.