chocolate

First, I'll start off with rebuking the pro case, then I will go back onto my case and respond to some of the arguments my opponent made. First off, let's start with the 40 reasons to hate sugar list. First off I would like to say that these are all bad things. Nobody could reasonably deny that these results are bad. But in terms of the debate, I would like to bring up two points that should make seeing this list a little bit easier. First: At best, this list is a non-unique impact for his case. Chocolate also has sugar in it, and thus has the potential to cause all of these problems just as much as these ‘sugar based candies' he refers to, without actually specifying to a kind of candy he is talking about. But secondly: Going off of the first point a little, if chocolate has sugar in it (this is just a true fact. My opponent would be ridiculous to try and rebuke this), then they also have the ability to cause all of these harms. So since I'm proving chocolate has the potential to cause more harms (41 harms compared to the 40 harms), the vote right now becomes an easy vote for the con because I'm showing you how sugar-based candies cause less harms than chocolate does, thus being better for you or ‘healthier'. So how the round works out post-rebuttal is this: since the long list that pro listed is more or less a non-unique harm, whoever is providing the worst non-unique harm to the opponent's case is going to be winning this round. Now, let's go to the arguments he made against my case. First, I'll concede that people generally don't see that chocolate can lead to suicide via an imbalance in the level of human hormones. But just because we don't recognize something as truth, it isn't true. That's like saying if I don't believe one plus one equals two, then it no longer equals two, but instead three. This obviously isn't true, but this is the kind of argument my opponent is trying to make. Just because we don't think of chocolate as causing us depression and leading us to suicide, doesn't make it any less true. And while chocolate may be the least likely reason for suicide, that still doesn't change the truth of the statement. All my opponent is doing is try to appeal to some metric of outside reason by saying "Don't believe this. You know it isn't true. He's being ridiculous." But aside from that, which more or less paraphrases his entire rebuttal, he makes no other arguments against any of my evidence provided. It's not like I'm not warranting this argument. I've provided you clear links between pieces of evidence that my opponent hasn't even breathed on, that this claim is true. Because he's basically conceded my evidence, he's basically conceding my case. So at this point you can extend the two reasons I gave as to why suicide will always out-weigh the impacts given by the pro debater. As was before, these reasons were not so much as even mentioned in his last speech, and it's going to be one of the most crucial mistakes in my opponent's last round. Next, he gives you this list of 17 other things that can cause suicide. While these reasons are certainly true in having the potential to cause someone to commit suicide, you don't even need to bother remembering this is further rounds because these in no way, shape, or form are relevant to today's debate. I'm not saying in my case that chocolate is the only cause of suicide, rather that it is only a cause of suicide. So listing other reasons for suicide doesn't really do anything. Next, my opponent also goes and concedes the link that chocolate causes mood swings. Since this is an integral internal link in my case, it's another reason why you're going to believe the con case over the pro case. Next, he lists a bunch of harm to ‘sugar-based candies', but he makes a small mistake here. These harms are only related to sugar, not just sugar based candies. Thus, since sugar is also present in chocolate, these harms also apply to the pro as well. And since I'm providing you with a better unique impact than my opponent is, that's why you'll be voting con.