California should adopt New York City's restriction on the sale of sugary drinks.

Hello, and thank you for joining us for this debate. First I would like to make rejourders, and then weigh this debate. Proposition: Point #1 is "Americans are becoming obese."...(Opp and Prop[2])Opp (2): The realization is that these kids have not yet become adults, so they have not had a chance to prove what they have learned. I would like to also mention that we aren't trying to STOP people from drinking sugary drinks, instead, drinking safely. Prop (3): Students are learning everyday, and they are being tested everyday, so instead of just shoving them all their tests when they become adults, we are making them learn day by day. Opp (3): First of all, the Proposition does not show how children are being tested everyday, so that has no impact. Aditionally, we ARE making children learn day by day, and test their skills little by little with extra-curricular activities. On top of this, children use the skills they learn now to become better adults, and to use them in their adulthood. Prop: Point #2 is "Sugary Drinks lead to health problems."...(Opp and Prop (2))Opp (2): The proposition has not directly rejoined, as in their Prop. 2, they only showed statistics that soft drinks do cause health problems. They did not refute the point made that their second argument is non-unique.Prop (3): Actually, it is directly joined because our point is that it leads to health problems, and we have clearly brought up evidence that leads directly to Sugary drinks causing health problems. Opp (3): It can be true that sugary drinks do cause MINOR health probelms. However, as the proposition did not refute, this probelm can happen anywhere to anyone with anything, thus their argument is ununique.Prop: Point #3 is "Healthy alternatives are available."...(Opp and Prop[2])Opposition (2): The proposition commented on how that water, an healthy alternative, is not as expensive. However, in some places that is the exact opposite. In the middle of the desert, for ex. Utah, water is an unavailable resource that cannot be easily retrieved and must be bought. Additionally, the Proposition has dropped the fact about their mentioning of Iced Coffee. Proposition (3). What we are trying to point out is that in most places, water is very free and it is healthy for you. Also, that still does not refute their point about having healthy alternatives because all they are saying is that water is expensive. The problem is that water is less expensive then sugary drinks, even in the desert because sugary drinks needs some sort of water to start it off, and water by itself is good. The bad things about sugary drinks is that they add sugar to the water.Opposition (3): I'll first explain why sugary drinks are less expensive or about the same price as water. They have less water, and more of other ingrediants, thus costing less. The Proposition is not only pointing out that water is healthy for you, but they have not proven why they said unhealthy drinks, such as Iced Coffee, are in their "Healthier Options" List. Proposition: Point #4 is "It's an expense that people don't need to spend."...(Opp and Prop[2])Opposition (2): My opponent has stated that it's still the people's choice, just a bit more limited. However, a individuals choice isn't as free if there are limits. On top of this, they have mentioned that it is the government's duty to protect it's citizens. But it is also the government's duty to make sure their citizens are happy. By limiting freedom, by placing a limit on choices, citizens will not be happy at all. I would like to comment that they have dropped the refutation of economy. Proposition (3): What is more important, people staying alive while being a decent amount of happy, or citizens becoming obese and not able to do anything so the economy goes down, because people with health problems will not be able to work. (That also refutes their statement about the economy) We are not making all citizens unhappy. Half of them will be really happy, while others will be safer and a descent amount of happy.Opposition (3): First, I would like to comment that without economy, we won't have any material goods. As humans, most of us seek material goods for happiness. Additionally, how should the Proposition know what citizens like or not like? We can tell that citizens will not like being limited freedom from all the uprisings and the boycotts throughout American history. Plus, the slots where people used to work will now be taken by those unemployed, decreasing the unemployment rate of the US. Opposition: Point #1 "Banning Sugary Drinks Violates the People's Freedom."...(Prop [2])Opposition (2): Of course, there is a limit to freedom. However, the limit does NOT INCLUDE CHOICES. Choices will and cannot be denied. On top of this, taxing will not take away the pursuit of happiness because it gives back directly to the people, by adding conveniences such as better roads and education.Proposition (3): In fact, most people hate paying taxes, so that actually is going against the pursuit of happiness by taxing them, as their plan clearly states. Also, most of the taxpayers money doesn't go back to them, and since they have not stated any clear evidence, please make sure that they will not post any sources in their 3rd argument, because that is bringing up a new source (a new point).Opposition (3): So obviously, the proposition has thrown away my refutation in my second speech that there is a limit to everything. Although I have not stated any evidence showing that tax money goes back to the people, you can use common sense to prove this. Look around you. That public road, that's tax money. So is the public schools. Additionally, the Proposition has mentioned for me not to bring up any evidence, so clearly they realize there are evidence for this argumen that I make. Otherwise, they would have not mentioned it at all or would have mentioned it in every argument. I would like to now WEIGH this debate. Let's look at it first by evidence. The Proposition side has the burden of evidence, while the Opposition must only defend the status quo. Additionally, while the Opposition has provided clear evidence with links, all except for one of the Proposition's evidence are just publishers, such as "Huffington Post" or "New York Times". How are we to know if this is an opinion or a actuall lagit study? We cannot, thus the Proposition has failed their burden of proof. Now, let's look at the flow. The Proposition has not refuted all aspects of each of the refutation I have made, so none of their arguments stand. Additionally, the Proposition has completly dropped my second argument, so please carry this accross the flow. Ok. Let's look at the debate the way the Proposition has weighed this debate. According to them, the Opposition's main argument is economy. They stated that without health, people will not be able to work because they are too obese, and that they will die. I'm not saying people should die, but the life cycle must go on to provide space for incoming generations. With the open spaces, my opponent can get a job. I can too. You can too! And without money, there will be no way for nessasary materials to conduct life. Finally, let's look at the debate through the Proposition's window. Life will be one whose choices will be limited. If the government starts with sugary drinks, who know what will come next? Life will also be one where nobody dies untill a really old age. Good, right? Nope. Your children, the future generation, will not be provided any space. It's like a crowd. Until some people leave the area, no more new people can come in. Now, let's look at the debate through the Opposition's eyes. Life will be in a better USA, with a better economy, which means a greaterr education. Same for any other catagory. For all these reasons, please vote for the Opposition.Thank you. (Please excuse this argument for looking weird, as my computer has been acting weird.)