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

Hello, first I would like to refute and make rejoinders, then I would like to refute their new points.First we said,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 realization 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 aren't trying to STOP people from drinking sugary drinks, instead, drinking safely. Proposition (3): Students are learning everyday, and they are being tested everyday, so instead of just shoving them all their tests when they become adults, we are making them learn day by day. Proposition: Point #2 is "Sugary Drinks lead to health problems."Opposition: However, this argument is non-unique as it can happen anywhere, with anything, to anyone. Eating too much rice leads to a negatively 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 proposition has not directly rejoined, as in their Prop. 2, they only showed statistics that soft drinks do cause health problems. They did not refute the point made that their second argument is non-unique.Proposition (3): Actually, it is directly joined because our point is that it leads to health problems, and we have clearly brought up evidence that leads directly to Sugary drinks causing health problems. Proposition: Point #3 is "Healthy alternatives are available."Opposition: My opponent's third point was that healthy alternatives are available. Unfortunately, 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 (3). What we are trying to point out is that in most places, water is very free and it is healthy for you. Also, that still does not refute their point about having healthy alternatives because all they are saying is that water is expensive. The problem is that water is less expensive then sugary drinks, even in the desert because sugary drinks needs some sort of water to start it off, and water by itself is good. The bad things about sugary drinks is that they add sugar to the water. 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 individuals 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 individuals 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. Proposition (3): What is more important, people staying alive while being a decent amount of happy, or citizens becoming obese and not able to do anything so the economy goes down, because people with health problems will not be able to work. (That also refutes their statement about the economy) We are not making all citizens unhappy. Half of them will be really happy, while others will be safer and a descent amount of happy.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.Proposition (3): In fact, most people hate paying taxes, so that actually is going against the pursuit of happiness by taxing them, as their plan clearly states. Also, most of the taxpayers money doesn't go back to them, and since they have not stated any clear evidence, please make sure that they will not post any sources in their 3rd argument, because that is bringing up a new source (a new point).I will not post our arguments here, because I will run out of characters. This is to their second point: Again, they also have not brought up an sources that the tax money will go to places like medicare, so please make sure that they do not bring this up in their next argument. And they also have agreed with us that without a good economy, we can't have the needs for a halthy life. Now I would like to way this debate. Their main point is that it helps the economy. We have clearly stated that if people get health problems, it will hurt the economy because a) People will become to obese to work and so their will be less people working and b) And people might die. Since lives and the economy are the most important thing in this debate, I strongly urge a proposition ballet.Thank you.