Fat Tax should be implemented

I will be addressing my opponents final arguments and summarizing why the Con argument deserve to win this debate Consistency- This argument is off topic because the Con would argue that all "luxury taxes" are wrong. Therefore unless my opponent can prove that "luxury taxes" are good (they didn't), this argument fails. Overall rebuttal- "Con has spent most of the debate refuting points rather than proving the inefficacy of the motion. " It is not my burden to prove the inefficacy of this proposal only that the proposal is wrong. The burden is on Pro to prove efficacy, therefore by disproving points Con has successfully blocked Pro from proving that burden. My opponent also suggests that because Con did not present a solution, Pro's proposal is valid. Once again, solving the problem is not Con's burden. That is Pro's burden which was not met. Pro doubles down on "low nutritional value" as indicating something is objectively unhealthy but once again Pro fails to define "low nutritional value" in any specific terms. Pro relies instead on common perception but common perception is both too vague, and too often inaccurate, to be basis for law. Pro also continues to make points about the supposed financial benefits to people if they buy healthy food instead but did not address my point as to when governmental authority ends. Can the government decide our religion, job, exercise level, etc. for us with the goal of making people happier and healthier? No, of course not because government shouldn't be making any personal decisions for people regarding their own health or life. Pro's argument against my argument regarding crony capitalism and corruption ignores all the points made (which flow through) and puts forth the assertion that unhealthy food is more controlled by large corporations than healthier foods. My opponent does not support the claim with evidence. Monsanto is one of the most well-known and hated corporations in the world. They control a staggering amount of agriculture. (1) Pro's arguments about the discrimination/regressiveness of the proposed tax only claim that the government is doing it for the benefit of those that it discriminates against. This does not disprove that it is both discriminatory or that the tax will be disproportionately paid by the impoverished. It also restricts their freedom and exacerbates the unfairness of wealth inequality. Pro abusively took a quote completely out of context in their next argument. Allow me to finish the quote. "Unhealthy foods are healthier for the poor then not being able to afford food or skipping meals. " My opponent does not refute this statement they simply ignored the actual point. Even food low in nutritional value is healthier than starving. As for the report, (this is perhaps my fault for being unclear in the title of my argument IV) it is irrelevant because: A) it does not instantly prove that the government has a right to implement the policy (which my opponent has not proven elsewhere in the debate) B) It does not address the areas where the Michelle Obama school lunch initiative failed. Forcing better health on the sedentary/unhealthy at the expense of those who choose to put forth the effort to be healthy through physically activity (who require more calories) is immoral. Conclusion- My initial points stand. Pro's whole argument focuses on efficacy while ignoring morality. There has been no acknowledgement of the obvious slippery logic of the arguments given. There are no objective standards to distinguish healthy food from unhealthy foods and Pro has not outlined them even if there are. My opponent fails to address various points and arguments on the Con's side that flow through to prove my initial 5 points. Pro's arguments are anti-autonomy and immoral. 1) . http://m.greenpeace.org...