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

DefinitionsMy opponent clearly provided two definitions. His exact words were, "something passed out at Halloween that is not a natural product (something grown from the ground), or a toy." The comma in the sentence separates the two definitions he provided. My opponent advocated the addition of probiotics in non-natural Halloween goodies and toys, and is now trying to back out of it because he realized he cannot defend his own resolution.Furthermore, he rejects my own definitions for the following reasons:The Claim That Sex is Natural My opponent says that my definition of candy as "sex" is incorrect because sex is supposedly "natural." He said this directly after he defined natural as "something grown from the ground."Let me be very clear. Sex does not grow from the ground. My opponent should find it to be self-evident that sex is not something grown, and should therefore accept my definition. Invalid SourceMy opponent went so far as to accuse my definition of being invalid because "he does not believe" that Urban Dictionary should be a valid source. Frankly, he thinks this entire debate orbits around his opinions. After all, he made up the definition he presented. Why can't I be allowed to provide a source from a third party website for a definition if he can go and invent his own?In fact, his definitions should be thrown away entirely because they don't come from a source at all.Thus, my opponent's definitions are actually inferior to mine.Preventing Children From Eating CandyMy opponent actually thinks that kids will stop eating candy because probiotics are medicine and kids don't like medicine. In reality, this does not follow at all.Not only does it not make sense because it implies that all children hate medicine, or even because it implies that all children know what the word "probiotic" means. It doesn't follow because children already eat food with probiotics in them. Yogurt is a very popular snack food among children[1], and yogurt is loaded with probiotics[2].If my opponent wants to make the claim that kids won't eat probiotic candy because it's medicine, he has to prove that children across America aren't eating Go-Gurt because it's medicine.Giving Candy to the ElderlyMy opponent now wants to give probiotic candy a chance to help senior citizens with their explosive diarrhea. He makes the suggestion that we use this candy as medicine to cure the elderly of this ailment.He proposes this solution, paying no mind to the fact 20 percent of Americans over the age of 65 have diabetes[3]. On top of that, in a medical study, when 143 people at an average age of 63 were given candy and told to memorize words, the results came back substatially less fruitful[4].My opponent wants to give food that is detrimental to the health of the elderly... to the elderly. The disadvantages simply outweigh the benefits.Lowering TaxesNext, Pro goes on to say that infusing bacteria into candy would lower taxes. The problem is, it would do quite the opposite.The resolution dictates that the Federal Government should add probiotics to all candy. My opponent seems to think that's not going to cost the government any money to enact. If the government is going to mandate probiotics being put in every piece of candy (and every toy, sex, item used to attain sex, and drug) from every company, they're going to have to set up an administration to fund and mandate it. This administration is going to cost millions if not billions of dollars. (An example of the complexity of funding an entire administration can be seen here[5].) That money money has to come from somewhere. And the only place the government can get extra money is by raising taxes. My opponent's advocation will not lower taxes, but make taxes higher.Health of ChildrenThis contention is no different than my opponent's first contention. It's only saying that children will stop eating candy, and therefore will not experience these health defects. It can be debunked with the same response.Government Intrusion on BusinessThe very principle of having a government that supports free enterprise is that the government does not make mandates in business when it's not necessary. Pro's plan intrudes on the free enterprise principle by forcing businesses to make unnecessary changes against their will. In essence, what Pro is advocating is unconstitutional, and obviously, therefore shouldn't be initiated.Pro's Sources Do Not Support His ArgumentAs expected, Pro cited a few sources at the end of his argument. These sources, however, do nothing to construct what he's trying to argue. For starters, the sources are not numbered, so there's no way of knowing what he's trying to use to support what.On top of that, two of his sources, when clicked on, show nothing but "Error 404." This means that these sources do not exist. The third source is nothing more than a .pdf that explains what probiotics are. It does nothing to advocate the use of probiotics in candy, or anything of the sort.(A small side note, putting probiotics in toys is not beneficial, and putting probiotics in sex is impossible.)For all these reasons and more, a Con vote is just and warranted.Sources[1] http://www.stonyfield.com...;[2] http://www.webmd.com...;[3] http://www.diabeticcareservices.com...;[4] http://www.diabeticcareservices.com...;[5] http://1.bp.blogspot.com...;