This House believes that the United States Federal Government should add probiotics to all candy.

I will devote this round entirely to rebuttal. This round explains why a Con vote is the only warranted option.The ElderlyDiabetesMy opponent attempts to defend his disregard for the 20% of senior citizens with diabetes by saying that he merely said that "this wasn't the average person." If that statement doesn't imply that diabetic senior citizens should be disregarded, then this statement means nothing, and concedes to the fact that taxpayer's money will be wasted on a "medicine" that 20% of recipients won't be able to use.He then attempts to refute the fact that it will be useless by using the statistic that 90% of users have hypoglycemia, ignoring my refutation that diabetes and hypoglycemia come hand-in-hand and is an acute condition, not chronic.For my opponent's sake, acute means it is not a condition people are bound to for life. It's a condition that happens suddenly (i.e., a seizure). Being acute, hypoglycemia can happen to any diabetic, but isn't guaranteed to. When a diabetic is not experiencing hypoglycemia, the candy medicine is useless and will end up being a waste of money.Here's where it gets fun:The next statement my opponent makes is him arguing against himself. He mistakes his own argument for something I said, and furthermore disproves it. I never said that candy had minor health benefits, that was him in Round 3. In Round five, my opponent refutes his own argument, on top of the refutations I already made against it."Healthy" CandyMy opponent's argument about mints has strayed far off course from the resolution. He's resotred to nitpicking about what mint does for what, completely ignoring my argument that disadvantages to candy outweigh the benefits. My opponent no longer knows how to defend the resolution, and is resorting to red herrings.ChildrenIn Round 2, my opponent said this:"Injecting probiotics into candy would deter children from eating candy."Now, he quite specifically says:"there will be children who will eat the healthy candy."My opponent has conceded his entire first point. Furthermore, this contradiction is followed up with a verbal concession. My opponent has forfeited his first contention both implicitly, and verbatim.Pro goes on (back to the elderly) to say that because one type of candy benefits the memory, then no type of candy is detrimental to memory. Furthermore, he provides this argument without evidence, as opposed to the argument I presetned from the Huffington Post. My opponent has no basis for either his elderly claim or children claim.TaxesMy opponent only goes in circles to try to defend that this plan will not raise taxes, only after conceding that it will not lower taxes. After I explain that his "we will get money from money" statement is incoherent, he rephrases it:"We will get money from the money we save on buying diarrhea medicine."The government isn't buying diarrhea medicine. Even if they were, they wouldn't be spending near the billions of dollars on it as it would cost to mandate and fund probiotics in every piece of candy from every factory across the nation. Besides, candy can't be a total replacement for diarrhea medicine, because there's still that 20% with diabetes which my opponent chooses to believe doesn't exist. My opponent's plan is not only idealist, it's completely illogical. Government Intrusion on BusinessMy opponent's claim is that because the government mandated nutrition facts on fast food, that it can mandate probiotics in candy. Here's the difference: printing nutrition facts doesn't cost billions upon billions of dollars in tax revenue. DefinitionsMy opponent forfeits to my definitions, meaning that he left, sex and drugs uncontested, technically meaning that he forfieted two thirds of this debate.Thus, a Con vote is the only warranted decision.