Soda from a fountain is better than canned soda.

As a brief road-map, 1. Off Case 2. Clash 3. Response to new argument 4. Underview 1. I started off my last speech by listing inappropriate tactics on behalf of my opponent. While I stand by these violations of debate etiquette, and will cover them more thoroughly in just a moment I'd like to point out that my opponent basically only talked about these issues in his previous speech. He spends a good amount of his character space discussing this issue and so fails cover the actual clash in this debate. Next my opponent claims that he is indeed arguing balance and so has met his burden -- this isn't the case. My opponent doesn't even begin to argue that both of these things are equal but instead shows that they both have negative qualities so you you shouldn't drink either of them. That doesn't meet the burden of equality, it just shows that soda is bad for you. I still show you explicit benefits to fountain soda that canned soda doesn't have. Extend my red meat analysis here because it really makes my point; just because red meat is bad for you doesn't mean that a rib-eye steak isn't better than ground chuck. Finally consider that this debate starts with both kinds of soda having a value of zero. After My first constructive I give two examples of soda from a fountain being better, and one drawback of canned soda. this makes the count Fountain: 2, Canned:-1. My opponent's constructive gives a single argument in refutation of my first point which shows a negative element for both canned and fountain soda. Now the count is Fountain:1, Canned:-2 This isn't balance. 2. Freshess- this is a drop. Like I said before my opponent only covered the off-case in his previous round, so both of these on-case argument extend across unrefuted. This makes the count Fountain:2, Canned:-2. I'm winning by a four point margin. Price- Not only only does my opponent drop this argument in his first constructive, but here he's trying to claim that I wasted space making this argument in the first place. He writes, ". .. yet if you look at his round 2 posting, he wrote an entire paragraph about price. Of which I can only assume was filler for the round, as again, there was no indication as to arguing about price. " Let's make one thing really clear here, the fact that I didn't limit round means that there are no limits on the round. When I say 'better' I mean that term to be all-inclusive. Anything you want to argue that shows that one type of soda is qualitatively better or worse than the other would have been acceptable It would be sufficient for me to just say that this a drop so it flows Pro, however it's more than just that. This argument is an issue of conduct. My opponent blatantly ignores my arguments and then claims that his doing so is reason to vote for him. Do not let this go unnoticed, and teach him that this is inappropriate through the vehicle of your conduct vote. 3. As for the new argument I'll cover it point-by-point 1. False. It can easily go flat[3], plus it can have dangerous toxins. [3]. http://bit.ly... 2. Again false[3]. I don't know why my opponent is making these unwarranted claims. 3. My opponent doesn't source this argument, and either way it's not compelling reason to believe that the soda doesn't sit in a warehouse. As I already showed [you, it does sit in both trucks and warehouses[3] before it gets to your hands for consumption. 4. I'm not going to lie, this argument is wholly incomprehensible. It's basically an argument of cleanliness which my opponent neither warrants nor cites. This is the equivalent of my saying that people have claimed to find dead rats in their coke cans (which is incidentally true[4]). At least if something like that happens with a fountain drink you can hol the source responsible [4] . http://lat.ms... 4.