This house would ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks

First I would like to start off by refuting my fellow opponent's arguments. But before I do, I would like to clarify that I am NOT supporting his side. I am on proposition so it's my obligation to defend the resolution. The resolution states that "This house would ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks." I am hereby supposed to agree and give reasons why we should ban the sale of large-sized soft -drinks. My arguments say that soft-drink itself is harmful and the ingredients inside harm us even further to severe diseases. I also mentioned that soft-drinks contribute to environmental damage. And my last argument was saying that soft-drinks are part of the reason why obesity is skyrocketing in USA. So my arguments do not support my opponent's side. My opponent claiming that my arguments support his side is a clear misinterpretation he made. Now, I would like to move on to refuting. My opponent's first argument states that the government shouldn't restrict some people's pleasure. Is killing yourself a pleasure? Sure you might feel comfortable and joyful that instant, but it's government's obligation - duty - to alert us and motivate us to do the right thing. Again, as I said in my previous argument, drinking large-size soft-drinks can actually harm each and everyone of us. Drinking large-size soft-drinks can affect the environment in a negative way and eventually harm us - either indirectly or directly. The government should take part in something the whole US citizens could be harmed. My opponent's second argument is that restricting will inhibit our freedom of choice. The government has a right to act accordingly if we are planning to kill ourselves. It might sound ironic that you might be killed by drinking large-size soft-drinks but continuous consumption of this beverage will result in unpleasant and nasty diseases. Again, government is allowed to help us with our choice. The police force try to save us when we are about to jump off the bridge. This applies to government. The government is trying to help us, not take away our freedom. By saying that government is trying to take away people's freedom, my opponent misunderstood the purpose of the large-size soft-drink ban. My opponent's third argument is that not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. This argument is helping my side. He is saying that not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. I will accept his argument. Yes. Not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. Thank you opposition for supporting my side and actually giving strong evidence to support my side. Lastly, I would like to make one more argument of my own. My argument is that although sad, most American"s don"t have the self-control to be allowed to make free choices about what they eat. This is what I was saying the whole time. People need government's supervision. About 60% of people who drink soft-drinks can't restrict themselves from developing serious diseases and obesity. Of course, some of this might be accountable for people with diseases or medical disorders that aren't their fault, but that"s only a small portion of the 60%. That"s 6 out of 10 people; if those 6 people COULD control themselves, they probably would have already, and they wouldn"t BE obese in the first place. Thank you and please vote for proposition.