Fat Tax should be implemented

I will begin by addressing my opponents opening argument and I will then move on to refuting their rebuttals of my argument. 1) My opponent spends much of her space illustrating the economic and public health concerns over obesity. I essentially agree with them on the points about the issue but I wholeheartedly disagree with the solution they proposed. 2) My opponents definition of the "fat tax" is perfect because it illustrates how vague and arbitrary the concept would have to be. "A form of sin tax implemented on unhealthy foods that are linked to obesity. " Many foods with great health benefits could be linked to obesity. Almost any food eaten in oversized portions can be linked to obesity. My point is that no line can be drawn without slippery logic. How much fat is unhealthy? How much sugar or salt is unhealthy? There are far too many factors to living a healthy life and too many variables that change these values from person to person for a blanket standard to fit everyone. This goes back to my argument about school lunches. Those standards were based on the dietary recommendations for sedentary adult woman. At the time, I was a growing teenager male in 4 sports and in a weight training class. Those guidelines forced my school to cut portion sizes which left me hungry every day (I relied on free lunch because I came from a low income family). This was not healthy for me even though I was choosing a healthier lifestyle than a sedentary adult woman. 3) My opponent also makes reference to the fact that since our country offers medical subsidies the government has a right to make decisions in regards to their health. This is a dangerously authoritarian approach. The purpose of our government is not to force people into health, work, or any other good thing in exchange for medical benefits. That is called slavery. Our government should instead be focused on ensuring that people have access to the tools to build a healthy/happy life for themselves as they see fit. If they choose otherwise, that is their right and should not be subject to anyone else's opinions. On to refuting Pro's rebuttals. I) There are no objectively unhealthy foods- My opponents definition of unhealthy is itself subjective, "food that is not REGARDED as being conducive to health". Unless my opponent can give specific nutritional guidelines (like # of calories/fat/salt/, then unhealthy is a subjective term. I used the McDonald's example to prove that even though much of society considers McDonald's food as unhealthy, the CEO was able to become healthier while eating nothing but that food. He did this through moderation, variety, and exercise. If I am biased towards believing I can lose weight by sitting on the couch more that does not work. His bias does not disprove his real, verified results. II) Exacerbates crony capitalist corruption- My opponent does not address this point which means I must assume Pro has accepted the burdens of these harms. III) Discriminatory and regressive- In this rebuttal my opponent supports glaringly slippery logic. "Choice. .. is only effective when individuals make choices that do not harm themselves. " Essentially this statement claims that the government has power to determine for individuals what will lead them to live the happiest/healthiest possible life. Can we make exercise mandatory? Can we make people shower everyday? At what point do people have power over their bodies if this is the standard? My opponent also speaks to the supposed economic benefit to individuals. So the government should decide what we do with our money too? Why not elect a nutritionist/personal financier our dictator? IV) Fails to create a healthier society- My opponent didn't refute my points here except to bring up an unspecified EU report. This is not sourced and to use my opponents argument here, the EU "is subject to bias". V) Not the governments right- See 3 and III.