The New York Soft Drink Size Ban

Thank you, and now in to the final round. First off, I would like to bring to the audience's attention;My opponent is two sided. When it comes to obesity, my opponent has said two opposite statements, stated by himself on if it is a problem or not. In round two, my opponent says;"despite my clients claim that obesity is not a problem, it certainly is," So by reading this you understand that my opponent thinks that obesity indeed is a problem, for it is clearly stated. Then my opponent, in round three says;"my opponent did rightfully point out that he believes obesity is a problem. I actually disagree" Now, my opponent claims that obesity is not a problem. My opponent's belief towards obesity is two sided and against himself. All of these quotes were taken directly from my opponent's previous arguments. "Dropped topics"Although I did infer ideas of the dropped topics in my previous debates, I did not reply specifically to those exact topics, for I thought that is was not necessary, but if my opponent insists on it, I certainly will. "The cheapness of soda and the benefit of companies to sell it in unhealthy amounts," First, an unhealthy amount is determined by the specific person. 24 oz may be unhealthy for me and not you. 12 oz may be unhealthy for one person but perfectly fine for another. We can not determine an "unhealthy" and "healthy" amount, for it is different for everyone. "This restriction is similar to long standing restrictions on tobacco," We are not talking about tobacco restrictions and bans, we are talking about whether or not you can buy a 24 oz coke from McDonald's. "His idea the people might by more soda is flawed logic," Once again, it is an inconvenience for people not being able to buy as much soda as they want. It is just very annoying, therefore people may go against the cause in a boycott sort of way. Is it a highly possible scenario? Not too much, but it is possible. "The soda industry is paying people to publicly oppose the legislation" Another conspiracy theory. Why in the world would a company spend their money on average citizens to oppose the ban, when the soda company, who in a group has way more power than an average citizen, spend their money for people to appose it, when they could do it themselves for free? They have more of a say and more power, so why pay citizens? Also, no proof. Now, this does not include the private industries suing the city, which indeed there are like my opponent stated. But they are private groups who are against the cause. And like my opponent said, "why would the companies waste their money? " The companies are private, and like most people, are against the ban. Now that I have responded to all, supposed loose ends, I can make a small rebuttal to my opponents most previous statement, then go in to my closing statement. Response First, I do not get why my opponent keeps referring to tobacco, marijuana, cigarettes, ect. We are talking about soda proportion being banned, not the legalization or marijuana. There is quite a difference between the two. He also says "I reject all previous and any further statements that this ban is telling "people" what to do. " I do not know why the quotes around "people," maybe because my opponent stands for the idea of banning the companies and not the citizens. Well the companies are people too, just like you and me. So, you are not banning a company, you are banning the people working in that company, regulating what they can and cannot sell. Now, if that is not what you mean when you say that, and are truly stating that you are not telling citizens what to do, that is absurd. That is exactly what you are doing. You are telling people that they must not buy drink sizes over 16 oz. How are you telling them? You are banning them! 'People can cash their check every week, buy nothing but soda from a grocery store, and hook it up to their veins through an IV if they want," says my opponent in the previous round. Exactly. So why ban it from a restaurant when people can just always get as much as they want? If anything, in an oversimplification, this ban is a very large inconvenience! Final StatementI would like to finish off by simply stating how wrong this ban really is to our freedom in the sense it will take away basic freedom such as eating and drinking. Also, this is America. If I want a large coke at a local restaurant I should be able to get one! Nobody should tell me no. This ban not only violates basic principles of freedom, but if anything, is quite the inconvenience. This ban will be followed by a great deal of lawsuits and protesting. The ban is also not scientifically based that it will regulate obesity, which my opponent has stated is not important, so why the ban? My only question, why? This ban is absolutely absurd in the sense that it is;Violating basic principles of freedom, a large inconvenience to the city and the citizens, and unproductive.