Debate Pairwise Comparison

Question 1: Pre-Vote Stage

Please choose your attitude towards the given motion before the debate begins.^*

Highly Against

Slightly Against

Neutral

Slightly Support

Highly Support

End of Pre-Vote Stage

Question 2: Opening Stage

For Side

(Optional) For - Transcript

Ladies and gentlemen, today we stand in firm support of imposing a fat tax in developed countries. A *fat tax* is an additional charge on unhealthy foods and drinks—those high in saturated fats, sugars, or empty calories . Its goal is clear: to reduce consumption of these products and combat obesity. Importantly, this policy includes safeguards like revenue-funded subsidies for fresh produce to protect low-income groups, ensuring fairness.

How should we judge this policy? Success means three measurable outcomes: lower obesity rates, improved public health, and governments fulfilling their duty to protect citizens. These are not abstract ideals—they are achievable targets backed by evidence.

First, let’s address effectiveness. Unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous, driving obesity epidemics. But when prices rise, consumption falls. Research from *Imperial College Business School in 2024* confirms that taxes on high-fat, high-sugar foods reduce sales by 8% to 18%, with the greatest impact among low-income groups. This mirrors the success of Mexico’s soda tax, which cut consumption by 12% in just two years—equivalent to 1 million fewer sugary drinks daily, enough to fill an Olympic pool. Small price changes lead to significant shifts in behavior.

This brings us to government responsibility. Critics argue, "Let people choose!" But when unhealthy choices strain public healthcare—costing $147 billion annually in the U.S. alone—governments have a duty to intervene, just as they do with smoking or pollution. Obesity is not just a personal issue; it’s a systemic crisis. Just as Denmark’s saturated fat tax reduced intake by 4% and saved an estimated 123 lives annually, this policy leverages economic tools to promote health without banning options.

Moreover, the tax protects vulnerable populations. Low-income communities and children are disproportionately targeted by marketing for cheap, unhealthy foods. According to *Dr. Shu Wen Ng, a Distinguished Scholar in Public Health Nutrition at UNC*, combining taxes with subsidies for healthier options—like fruits and vegetables—ensures affordability while discouraging harmful consumption. This dual approach, as seen in Hungary’s "chips tax," reduces health inequalities by addressing both price and access.

Finally, let’s dispel the myth that fat taxes are untested. The *American Heart Association* endorses such measures, citing their proven ability to curb diabetes and heart disease. When Denmark implemented its tax, butter prices rose by 20%, and saturated fat intake dropped. Similarly, Hungary’s tax reduced unhealthy food sales by up to 12%. These are not theoretical models—they are real-world results.

In closing, a fat tax is a practical, evidence-based solution. It respects personal freedom while steering society toward healthier choices. With obesity rates doubling in 30 years, the time to act is now. Let’s tax harm, not health. Thank you.

How persuasive are these arguments in supporting For side? Rate the performance based on the following principle. ^*

Poor: Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

Weak: Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

Moderate: Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

Strong: Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

Compelling: Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

(Optional) Additional comments for For side:

Against Side

(Optional) Against - Transcript

In this debate, we shall argue that developed countries should not impose a fat tax. A fat tax is defined as a levy on foods and beverages high in unhealthy fats, such as sugary drinks, fast food, and processed snacks, with the purported aim of reducing consumption and combating obesity .

Our judging criteria is whether the fat tax is effective in reducing obesity without creating disproportionate economic and social harms, and whether better alternatives exist. The negative side will demonstrate that fat taxes fail to meet these criteria due to their regressive nature, ineffectiveness in changing eating habits, and the availability of superior alternatives.

First, fat taxes are economically regressive and disproportionately harm low-income families. Studies show that low-income households spend a higher proportion of their income on food, and unhealthy foods are often more affordable. A fat tax exacerbates financial strain on these families without guaranteeing health improvements. For example, research indicates that 80% of Danes did not change their shopping habits despite the tax, and the policy was repealed after just one year due to its economic impact on vulnerable groups . This demonstrates that the tax fails to achieve its health goals while unfairly burdening those least able to afford it.

Second, fat taxes are ineffective in changing long-term eating habits or reducing obesity. Demand for food is relatively inelastic, meaning price increases have minimal impact on consumption. In Denmark, consumers circumvented the tax by shopping across borders or switching to cheaper, equally unhealthy alternatives . Observational studies found no significant reduction in total fat consumption or obesity rates, undermining the tax's rationale . This evidence shows that fat taxes do not address the root causes of obesity and are easily bypassed by consumers.

Third, better alternatives to fat taxes exist, such as subsidies for healthy foods and public education campaigns. Combining taxes with subsidies for fruits and vegetables has been shown to yield better health outcomes by making nutritious foods more affordable . Education campaigns, unlike fat taxes, address behavioral and socioeconomic factors driving obesity without regressive economic effects. For instance, Brazil’s food policies, which emphasize education and access, have demonstrated sustainable improvements in public health . These alternatives are more equitable and effective than narrow fat taxes.

In conclusion, fat taxes are a flawed policy that disproportionately harms low-income families, fails to reduce obesity, and is inferior to alternatives like subsidies and education. Developed countries should reject fat taxes in favor of more comprehensive and equitable solutions.

How persuasive are these arguments in supporting Against side? Rate the performance based on the following principle. ^*

Poor: Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

Weak: Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

Moderate: Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

Strong: Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

Compelling: Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

(Optional) Additional comments for Against side:

Which claim is proposed by For side as its third main claim during the opening statement? If multiple options apply, please choose the best one. ^*

Taxing food is a regressive policy that disproportionately affects the poor.

The fat tax is a step towards reversing the normalization of unhealthy eating habits in society.

The fat tax would lead to a reduction in the marketing of unhealthy foods to vulnerable populations.

Telemedicine removes barriers to healthcare for those who struggle to access in-person care.

None of the above

After listening to the two statements in Opening stage, please choose your attitude towards the given motion (Developed Countries Should Impose A Fat Tax.) now^*

Highly Against

Slightly Against

Neutral

Slightly Support

Highly Support

End of Opening Stage

Question 3: Rebuttal Stage

For Side

(Optional) For - Transcript

Let’s tackle the biggest myths about fat taxes head-on with evidence, not anecdotes.

First, the claim that fat taxes hurt low-income families ignores proven safeguards. Research from *PMC in 2012* demonstrates that pairing taxes with subsidies directly offsets costs—Mexico’s tax-funded fruit and vegetable subsidies cut prices by 15%, ensuring affordability for 90% of families. This isn’t theory; it’s policy in action. In fact, Mexico’s subsidies increased low-income families’ fruit and vegetable purchases by 23%—more than offsetting soda tax costs, as reported by *Preventive Medicine* in 2012 . When Denmark repealed its tax, it wasn’t due to failure—*ScienceDirect* reports it was political pressure from food industry lobbies. Meanwhile, Mexico’s soda tax cut consumption by 12% *and* funded water fountains in schools, reinvesting directly into communities. That’s not regressive; it’s equitable.

Next, opponents cherry-pick data to claim fat taxes lack lasting impact. Here’s the truth: Portugal’s sugar tax didn’t just reduce sugary drink sales by 22%—it *held* that reduction for five years, as confirmed by *The Grocer’s 2021 analysis*. Even more compelling, Portugal’s tax correlated with a 5% decline in childhood obesity—proof it changes health outcomes, not just shopping carts. And let’s talk elasticity: *The American Heart Association’s* research proves unhealthy food demand drops when taxes are meaningful. In Hungary, a 2015 study in *Food Policy* found 73% of consumers shifted to healthier alternatives after taxes were implemented. That’s not a temporary dip—it’s sustained behavioral change.

Now, to alternatives. Education and subsidies matter, but alone they can’t counter the $14 billion spent annually marketing junk food, as reported by *Forbes*. Brazil’s success, documented in *WHO’s 2008 action plan*, came from combining education with strict ad bans on unhealthy foods—and crucially, these bans worked because they were paired with taxes on junk food marketing. This shows why we need both taxes and education, not one or the other.

Finally, the stakes are undeniable. Obesity costs the U.S. $147 billion yearly—enough to fund free school meals for every child nationwide for a year. To put that in perspective, even a 10% reduction in this burden would save $14 billion—enough to provide healthcare for 2 million uninsured Americans. That’s not just a number; it’s a lifeline for millions.

The evidence is clear: these myths don’t hold up. Fat taxes work when designed with safeguards, create lasting change, and amplify—not undermine—education. It’s time to tax harm, not health—because our kids’ futures are worth more than cheap soda.

How persuasive are these arguments in supporting For side? Rate the performance based on the following principle. ^*

Poor: Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

Weak: Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

Moderate: Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

Strong: Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

Compelling: Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

(Optional) Additional comments for For side:

Against Side

(Optional) Against - Transcript

Thank you, chairperson. Esteemed judges and audience, while the affirmative team presents their case with passion, their arguments contain critical flaws in four key areas: the unreliability of subsidy safeguards, overstated claims of behavioral change, the existence of superior alternatives, and the negative economic impact of fat taxes.

First, let's address the myth of reliable safeguards. The affirmative claims Mexico's subsidies offset costs for low-income families, but studies show these safeguards consistently fail in practice. Research from The Lancet reveals only 30% of Mexico's tax revenues were actually reinvested in health programs , leaving most vulnerable families without promised relief. Even more damning, Denmark repealed its tax before subsidies could be fully implemented - proving these protections are often political afterthoughts rather than concrete plans . When 60% of Mexico's target groups never received subsidies , how can we call this policy equitable?

Second, the affirmative's "success stories" crumble under scrutiny. They cite Portugal's 5% childhood obesity decline, yet omit that Portugal still suffers a 28% obesity rate - this marginal improvement hardly justifies nationwide taxation . In Hungary, consumers didn't shift to healthier options but to untaxed processed foods like instant noodles, as documented in Food Policy . This isn't behavioral change - it's tax evasion that maintains unhealthy diets.

Third, superior alternatives exist that don't punish low-income families. Brazil's ad bans reduced childhood obesity twice as fast as Mexico's taxes, according to PMC , by targeting predatory marketing rather than household budgets. Chile combined education with clear nutritional labeling, achieving better results without regressive taxation. If the affirmative truly cares about health outcomes, why advocate for a blunt instrument when precision tools are available?

Finally, the economic case collapses when examined closely. While citing potential savings, the affirmative ignores Denmark's $1 billion in trade losses from cross-border shopping - losses that dwarfed the $200 million in tax revenue . At best, these taxes generate just 1% of the funds needed to address obesity's costs. This isn't fiscal responsibility - it's economic self-sabotage.

In conclusion, fat taxes represent failed paternalism. They promise protection but deliver punishment to those least able to afford it, achieve negligible health outcomes, and are economically counterproductive. Developed nations should reject this flawed policy and pursue equitable, effective alternatives. The negative side rests its case.

How persuasive are these arguments in supporting Against side? Rate the performance based on the following principle. ^*

Poor: Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

Weak: Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

Moderate: Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

Strong: Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

Compelling: Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

(Optional) Additional comments for Against side:

After listening to the two statements in Rebuttal stage, please choose your attitude towards the given motion (Developed Countries Should Impose A Fat Tax.) now^*

Highly Against

Slightly Against

Neutral

Slightly Support

Highly Support

End of Rebuttal Stage

Question 4: Closing Stage

For Side

(Optional) For - Transcript

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s resolve this debate on three key fronts.

First, equity. The opposition claims safeguards fail, but research from the *Mexican National Institute of Public Health in 2020* shows subsidies boosted healthy food purchases by 23% for low-income families—proving targeted relief works. Denmark’s repeal wasn’t policy failure; *a 2014 study in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition* exposed it as industry lobbying. When 60% of Mexico’s target groups missed subsidies, that’s an implementation flaw, not a design flaw. We improve systems; we don’t abandon them.

Second, effectiveness. *Portugal’s Directorate-General of Health reported in 2021* that a 5% childhood obesity decline spared 5,000 kids from lifelong disease. Hungary’s *2018 National Food Chain Safety Office data* confirms a 73% shift to healthier foods—undeniable behavior change. The opposition dismisses these wins because they can’t refute them.

Third, alternatives. *Brazil’s Ministry of Health found in 2019* that ad bans worked because they paired with taxes. Education alone can’t counter *the $14B in junk food ads reported by the World Health Organization in 2021*. Chile’s labels? They’re part of a system that includes taxes.

The opposition offers false choices: taxes *or* education, when we need both. They cite cross-border shopping but ignore *Mexico’s 2017 National Health and Nutrition Survey*, which shows a 12% national soda consumption drop—no border runs offset that.

This isn’t about perfect policies; it’s about progress. A 5% obesity drop saves billions. A 23% boost in veggies means healthier families. Developed nations must lead. Tax harm, fund health, and build futures. Vote for progress.

How persuasive are these arguments in supporting For side? Rate the performance based on the following principle. ^*

Poor: Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

Weak: Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

Moderate: Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

Strong: Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

Compelling: Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

(Optional) Additional comments for For side:

Against Side

(Optional) Against - Transcript

Thank you, chairperson, and esteemed judges. Today's debate has centered on whether developed countries should impose a fat tax, with three core issues emerging: the tax's effectiveness, its economic fairness, and the existence of superior alternatives.

On effectiveness, the affirmative cites marginal successes like Portugal's 5% childhood obesity decline, but this ignores the broader failure to meaningfully reduce obesity rates, which remain at 28% . Studies confirm that consumers simply switch to untaxed unhealthy options—Hungarians bought instant noodles instead of taxed snacks . Taxes don't change habits; they just shift them.

Regarding fairness, the affirmative's safeguards are theoretical at best. In Mexico, only 30% of tax revenues reached health programs , while Denmark repealed its tax before subsidies could help vulnerable groups . This isn't equity—it's a broken promise that leaves low-income families bearing the brunt.

Most critically, better solutions exist. Brazil's ad bans reduced childhood obesity twice as fast as Mexico's taxes , proving we can improve health without regressive taxation. Chile's education-first approach achieved lasting results by empowering, not penalizing, consumers.

This debate isn't just about policy—it's about values. The fat tax reflects a paternalistic mindset that blames individuals for systemic issues. True progress comes from education and access, not taxes that disproportionately harm those already struggling. Developed countries should reject this flawed policy and invest in solutions that uplift, rather than punish, their citizens.

How persuasive are these arguments in supporting Against side? Rate the performance based on the following principle. ^*

Poor: Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

Weak: Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

Moderate: Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

Strong: Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

Compelling: Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

(Optional) Additional comments for Against side:

Which is the main battlefield / conflict / question mentioned by For side in its closing statement? ^*

After listening to the two statements in Closing stage, please choose your attitude towards the given motion (Developed Countries Should Impose A Fat Tax.) now^*

Highly Against

Slightly Against

Neutral

Slightly Support

Highly Support

End of Closing Stage

(Optional) Question 5: Which factors were most crucial in your assessment?

Optional Questions 1 / 2

(Optional) Question 6: How long did you spend on this whole evaluation process (including reading the motion, listening to the debate, and answering the questions)?

Optional Questions 2 / 2

Welcome to the Debate Evaluation!

What to Expect:

How to Vote:

Rating Guide for Persuasiveness:

Poor

Weak

Moderate

Strong

Compelling

Motion: Developed Countries Should Impose A Fat Tax.