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

I apologize for these arguments being out of order. This is due to the webpage crashing and me still having a few contentions on my clipboard.The ElderlyDiabetesMy 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. While it's obvious why this statement is absurd, I will explain anyway. 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.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. Someone who has hypoglycemia at one moment could have high blood sugar the next if he doesn't take care of his diet. You can't expect people to be thinking about their blood sugar attacks and their digestive system at the same time."Healthy" CandyMy opponent then argues that some candy has minor medical benefits. For starters, he gives no research to back up these statements. How much does dark chocolate benefit the heart? How much do you have to eat? One? A Hundred? These candies are still high in calories, fat, and sugar. Anything beneficial in candy is counteracted quickly by the obvious factors.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.DefinitionsMy opponent is just now, at the end of this debate, suggesting that a semicolon separates ideas in a definition. This cannot be accepted this late in the debate, and thus the original intention of the definition will be maintained. Also, this rule comes from no reputable source, but once again from my opponent's opinion. Therefore, toys should be included in my opponent's definition of "candy."Pro then wants to change his definition of natural at the end of the debate as well. Voters should vote based on his original definition, that candy is anything given out at Halloween and not grown out of the ground. This includes sex, things used to get sex, and crack.My opponent suggests that I have not mentioned these elements in the debate, even though I clearly pointed them out in a side note at the bottom of Round 2. This shows that my opponent is not clearly reading my argument.My opponent cedes and therefore agrees to the fact that my definition of "candy" is from a source while his is made up, and therefore should be used.Children 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. Then he says that children will be healthier by eating candy that's medicine. I have proven both contentions to be false.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.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. TaxesIn 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."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.Government Intrusion on BusinessMy opponent misunderstands this argument entirely. There is no contradiction here, nor is there any comprehensible reason to see one. 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.In essence, my opponent's arguments, while weak in the first place, have been fully refuted and then some. The resolution will raise taxes, yield no benefit, and is unconstitutional.For all these reasons, only a Con vote is warranted.