FIRST SPEAKER

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The motion for today’s debate is This House Would
Impose Higher Taxes At The Fast Food Restaurabt is overrated should fall to disgrace. As
the leader of opposition, I first would like say we disagree with the government’s
definition.

Firs, Taxes: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or
services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, or well to say a burdensome charge, obligation, duty,
or demand.

Second, Fast Food: Fast food refers to food that can be prepared and served quickly. It can come
from many places: sit-down restaurants, and street stall. However, fast food is often made with
cheaper ingredients such as high fat meat, refined grains, and added sugar and fats, instead of
nutritious ingredients such as lean proteins, whole grains, fresh fruits, and vegetables. 

First argument and second argument will be provided by me and third argument will be
provided by our deputy leader of opposition, 혜정. Now I will go on the rebut the
arguments made by the prime minister.

Team split

1. Today as first speaker I will be talking to you about impact of health perspactive

2. Our second speaker will be talking about economic society and education nowdays.

3. Our third speaker will rebut the affirmative case and sum up our team case.

Rebuttal

1. The first speaker from the affirmative team has tried to tell you (During the debate, you
would have listed the main arguments outlined by the first speaker for the affirmative side.
Insert them here.)

2. This is wrong because a fat taxes not work.i believe a fast food tax is very rude and doesn’t
help to fight obesity .The goerment thing they know what best for us when they can’t even
stop terrorist,wars or crime.No,they want to focus on obesity which I think is absurd.Yes,it
can cause health problems but that happens to everyone when you get older.Moreover,they
think they know the best for everyone in the world een though they can’t solve any major
problem.So ,I do not think that this house would impose higher taxes of the ast foo restaurant.
2nd speaker

“Thank you Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly clear up what appears to be a
slight.misunderstanding by our opposing colleagues.

3. Now to my second point

3. "The economy, stupid" — political strategist James Carville coined the phrase during
Bill Clinton's first run at the White House in 1992.However, it has become increasingly
obvious that our leaders are still very focused on development of natural resources,
Instead, tax reformers should understand that the workplace is not the only venue in which incentives
matter — and that taxpayers are not simply workers, employers, and investors. Economic man is also
a family man, and the next generation of tax reform should address the distortions and burdens our
fiscal policy imposes on Malaysian families.

Clearly, our history has shown us that put a higher taxes on fast food is a risky
strategy.It is also a strategy that continues to miss the point that the most lucrative
products in the contemporary global economy are in service and knowledge-based
sectors. Furthermore, our province is once again missing the next big economic turn by
failing to prepare for the coming green economy, in any kind of way that matters.

THE NEXT Third point:

When educators from around the country walked out of their classrooms last spring, their
message was clear: Our students deserve better. By taking this action,that is put higher taxes,
they said the fee is too much, no more decades-old textbooks held together with rubber
bands, and now, no more fast food that is affordable for us. that are essential to a bad-rounded
education.

So,do we need to agree with this topic might as well support the other side
team?
 

Third speaker:
I do not think that the government should tax us extra for what we want to eat. Moreover the fast
food
 

I honestly think that this tax is too much. Sure there are people who suffer from obesity and
heart problems, But that's because they're addicted. When people want sugar, They want sugar.
If they don't know that too much sugar is bad for them, We don't exactly need to slap them in
the face with this extra tax. Besides, We as the people of the Malaysian have the right to eat what
we want when we want it. You can effectively solve this kind of problem with many programs
and campaign on this issues
This is my opinion, And I stand by it.

I disagree with the idea of taxing junk food. The reason i said this was because yes junk food
might cause a little obesity but its not like someone is forcing Americans to eat it. Just think
about it, if you put more tax on the junk food then there might be more crime in poor neighbor
hoods. There is already crime because some people cant afford some of the food now . If you tax
the food then some people will stop buying which means more kids will be hungry, thats all they
eat sometimes.