Hi folks …
Before we begin, allow me to extend the usual, but still heartfelt and earnest 'thank you' to chissler, judges, readers, and most of all my esteemed
opponent vkey08 for engaging me in the undertaking of this worthy intellectual duel.
The topic for this debate is "The Government should implement a 'health tax' or ban on unhealthy foods to promote better lifestyles among its'
and I will be arguing the "Pro" position.
So I'm looking at this debate topic yesterday when it was first posted, and I don't mind telling you that a massive eye-roll took place when my eyes
first laid upon it … 'Oh this is just great!' I mumbled to myself, all I got to do is convince a bunch of fiercely independent ATSers that we need
MORE taxes and MORE government/ptb/NWO intervention!
Once I have laid all the facts before you, deconstructed the false premises upon which any contrary course of action would be founded, highlighted
existing structure and legality, considered the alternatives, it will become abundantly clear that for all possible reasons that matter to a society,
the government should tax and regulate unhealthy consumption.
Fact is, not only do all governments already do this, but they do it precisely because it is one of their primary raisons d'être!
Furthermore I will show beyond a doubt that such "pay for play" taxation is not only the fairest and most equitable of all, but will in fact
inevitably lead to LESS taxation, LESS government, and a healthier population.
I will expound upon these fundamental elements as we delve deeper into this debate. For now and for the purposes of this opening post, I will say the
following and urge you to keep it in mind as this debate unfolds …
My opponent CANNOT make her case on ideological, philosophical, or moral principle!
Principle is black and white, one either argues for or against it … does one believe the necessity of government or does one wish for anarchy.
Social contracts either apply or they do not!
Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states maintain social order. The notion of
the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order
through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.
… note as my opponent makes her case, that she will ONLY be able to make her stand on "degree" … namely that "x" much of taxation/intervention
is too much or too little. Yet she will not be able to put forth a basis upon which that choice should be made that doesn't contradict her stated
position! Other of course than the usual "the governments needs to stay off of up in my business"
And even if she managed this considerable task, it would simply be irrelevant … for as I will clearly demonstrate and have already stated, such
governmental measures would actually both limit taxation AND make it more equitable!
I'm sure my esteemed opponent is counting on our common inherent distrust of all things governmental and will attempt to use that to her advantage.
Easy enough to do but totally outside of the scope of this debate. The issue of trust between citizenship and their government is surely a worthy
one, but it isn't THIS one. Unless my opponent concedes this point this debate will be relegated to a simplistic "do we trust the gov. to get
anything right … no? … well there you go!"
I have no doubt this tactic will be attempted, I for one will only acknowledge it to point it out
as disingenuous, and will not humor it further.
Finally, my opponent will no doubt try to put forth the slippery slope fallacy
, in the hope of
tugging at your conspiratorial strings … "What's next?" she will say with great ignominy and outrage, and something cute and cuddly that the
government will tax next will be exampled.
Except that ...
We're not talking about anything other than the limited scope of the debate topic.
Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead
to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first
thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things;
restraint is possible. 3
Invoking any other subject or abstract example will be mere deflection and misdirection based on causal fallacies and nothing else!
My fellow ATSers.
I have outlined the clear scope of this debate ...
I have indicated how I will proceed to make my case ...
I have pointed out the clearly unattainable argumentative position that my opponent finds herself in ...
And when all is said and posted, there will be only one clear course of action and only one possible outcome for this debate ...
Not only SHOULD the government implement a 'health tax' or ban on unhealthy foods to promote better lifestyles among its' citizens, it in fact
MUST and already DOES!
I thank you once more for your time and attention and leave the floor to my no doubt incredibly healthy and socially conscious opponent.
Oh, I almost forgot ….
Socratic Question No. 1:
Is it your position that a seven year old should have unhindered access to heroin and crack coc aine?
And so it begins ...