Soda from a fountain is better than canned soda.

I'm going to use this speech to accomplish a couple of different things, 1. I will point out the flaws in his approach 2. I will respond to my opponent's clash 3. I will provide some early voters 1. Right from the batting box we can see that my opponent has chosen to simply refute my arguments, not provide any of his own; what this means is that my opponent has chosen to argue 'balance'. Basically he's urging a vote for the con by attempting to show that the two items in the resolution are equal. Or at least that's what usually happens when you see someone choosing to argue balance in a given resolution; my opponent has failed to do that here. The resolution states that 'Soda from a fountain is better than canned soda', indicating that I want to argue about which kind of soda is better -- con doesn't meet this burden. instead he's just arguing that both are bad so you should vote for him. This is nasty ploy and it kills any hope of having the discussion I wanted to have. Sure soda can be unhealthy, but that's not the point of this debate -- it's about which kind of soda is better. Things can have different levels of quality even if they're bad for you. A perfect example would be red meat; it's bad for you, but that doesn't mean that rib-eye isn't better than ground chuck. The impact here is that Con has failed to meet his burden of clash and should lose on that merit alone. 2. Freshness- a. My opponent's arguments here are completely unwarranted. He claims that these sodas will not sit in a warehouse for long, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that. There isn't a soda bottling plant on every block in the US, so unless you live down the street from a Dr. Pepper plant it's going to take a while for you to get your drinks. Further many establishments order their drinks in bulk and keep them on hand to stock their shelves as they need to to. These sodas can sit in the back of a store for weeks before they get put on the shelf, and then they're going to stay there until someone buys them. b. My opponent commits several fallacies in his refutation: first he makes an appeal to ignorance by claiming that if this was really such a problem we'd be hearing about it. That alone should discredits his arguments, but I'm going to go further as I'm afraid my opponent has missed the point here entirely -- it's not an issue of the soda going out of date and being bad, it's got a pretty decent life-span since it has indeed been canned. The issue is how fresh the soda is going to be when the consumer gets the chance to drink it. Having sat been in a can and stored gives the soda time to go flat, and for the ingredients to settle. That makes the soda not taste as good as if it were fresh from the tap. c. Make a direct extension here from from my prior argument concerning my opponent's inappropriate tactics. He can't just say that both kinds of soda are bad so he should win, he's got to either show balance, or that canned soda is better. When he says that freshness doesn't matter he completely ignores my argument which both disrespectful as well as poor form in terms of argumentation. Further he even admits that soda from the tap is fresher since the carbon dioxide has had less to leave the drink, effectively making it flat. Price- Complete and utter drop on behalf of my opponent. He admits soda from a fountain is cheaper. 3. a. My opponent has committed logical fallacies in his address of my first argument. b. My opponent has skewed the intention of this debate by failing to fulfill his burden of clash. c. My opponent has outright dropped several of my arguments.