FIRST SPEAKER (GOVERNMENT)

Opening:

Good afternoon I bid to the Speaker of the house, honourable adjudicators,

distinguished timekeepers, my worthy opponents and last but not least,
members of the floor.

I, as the first speaker of the government shall do my best to fulfill my role to

define the motion for today, introduce my second and third speakers and
explain their roles as well as convince you, members of the floor, that the
motion today must stand.

Definition:

Before I put forward my case, let me define today’s motion “This house
would impose tax on junk food”

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, ‘impose’ means to officially force a

rule, tax, punishment, etc to be obeyed or received. For today’s motion, our
prime focus would be on the imposition of taxes.

On the other hand, tax means an amount of money paid to the government
that is based on your income or the cost of goods or services you have
bought.

While according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, junk food refers to food

that is high in calories but low in nutritional content.
give examples of junk food:
- fast food / chocolate & sweets
- processed meat / sugary drinks

As you can see, honourable adjudicators, the motion posts an issue, that is,
the phrases ‘impose’,‘tax’ and ‘junk food’. We the government will look at
these three phrases to encompass the reasons behind why we believe that
taxes should be imposed on junk food.

Specify stand:

In short, our motion today is defined as the imposition of tax on junk food or
otherwise known as a fat tax

Specify roles:

I shall move on to specify the role of each of my fellow teammates. My

second speaker of the affirmative will put forth two arguments to tear down
the opposition’s view and address the point presented by their first speaker;
to help you, members of the floor to be convinced that the motion today
shall stand. While my third speaker will further help you understand the
clear logic in the government’s stand and the weakness in the opposition for
trying to distract you from the truth.
Argument 1:

Allow me to present my first argument.

The imposition of tax on junk food can encourage people to go for

healthier choices which leads to improved health. This would help
reduce certain diseases, especially obesity. People would have to
pay more for junk food and this can reduce the demand for them.
Food producers would be encouraged to supply food lower in fat and
sugar percentage and this can also serve as an incentive to fast food
chains to provide a wider range of food. ( give an example situation)

More than 50 countries around the world have already implemented

such taxes, including Brunei Darussalam, the Philippines, and
Thailand in Southeast Asia. As expected, it has shown promising
results.
Hungary and Mexico have taxes on certain "non-essential” foods and
drinks, for example. How has it worked for them? In Mexico, the
penalty resulted in 5-7 percent fewer purchases of "snacks, sweets,
nut butters and cereal-based prepared products.” Hungary saw a 5-
16 percent drop in purchases of "soft drinks, candy, salty snacks,
condiments, and fruit jams.” Isn’t that proven that imposing taxes
can refrain people from buying it?

According to an article released by UNICEF Malaysia ( United

Nations International Children’s Emergency Funds), in the
Philippines, SSB ( sugar sweetened beverages )taxes have reduced
consumption of sugary drinks by 8.7%, and a study found that they
could prevent 24,000 premature deaths related to diabetes, stroke,
and heart diseases.

Other than that, members of the floor, let me show you another good
example of imposing tax is a good way to refrain people of buying
the products.

Since 1970, federal taxes on cigarettes in the United States have

driven prices of cigarettes higher and higher. After imposing tax, The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says adult smoking in
America dropped 21% from 2005 to 2015.

well, if other countries have done it and shown results, what are we
still waiting for? This gives us more than enough reason to proceed
with the imposition of tax on junk food.
Reaffirm stand:

In conclusion, members of the floor, it is necessary for the government to

impose tax on junk food.
 2ND AFFIRMATIVE

Opening:

Thank you Ms/Mr Speaker of the house. Good afternoon I bid to

the honourable adjudicators, distinguished timekeepers, my
worthy opponents and last but not least, members of the floor.

Defn-Agree / Refute

Redefine:

AGREE:

Rebut 1st Negative: Possibilities

Tax might be inequitable
The first speaker of the opposition stated that …………………….. - The first speaker of the
opposition stated that taxes
…………………………………………………………………………… might be inequitable. Sadly,
…………………………………………………………………………… you are misguided, my worthy
…………………………………………………………………………… opponents.
………
-There are lots of healthy foods
Sadly, you are misguided, my worthy opponents. at a very low cost such as
…………………………………………………………………………… russet potatoes , carrots ,
…………………………………………………………………………… green cabbage , eggs and
…………………………………………………………………………… oatmeals .
……………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………… - Cheap healthy foods can be
…………………………………………………………………………… combined and made into a
…………………………………………………………………………… whole main course meal in a
…………………………………………………………………………… huge quantity. Therefore it can
…………………………………………………………………………… keep you full for a longer period
…………………………………………………………………………… of time compared to junk foods
……………………….. which are just filled with
preservatives and can’t keep
you full. The cost of buying
healthy foods are lesser
compared to buying junk foods
everyday which is an absolute
waste of money.
Argument 2:

Allow me to introduce my first point, imposing tax on junk food can

reduce the rate of chronic diseases. We must start with understanding
the basis of this argument first

As most of us already know, these food are a vital contributor to

obesity problems worldwide

- Based on an article released by WHO (World Health Organization ),

Malaysia is now the fattest nation in Asia and has the second highest
child obesity rate among children in ASEAN aged 5 to 19 years, with
7.1% of children under the age of 5 being overweight. This means that
Malaysia is also known as the ‘ most obese Asian country ‘. Now, the
opposition is going to try and mislead us with the argument that junk
food is not the only cause of obesity. But, we are not the least
convinced. Although there are many other factors behind obesity such
as genetics and so on, we all can't deny that obesity plays the biggest
part in contributing to this problem as I have mentioned earlier.

- The economic cost to Malaysia is huge. In the same article, it states

that proportionally it is the highest in ASEAN. In 2017, overweight
problems and obesity accounted for 13.3% of total health costs, 0.54%
of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or USD 1.7 billion, and this does not
include the indirect costs of lost labour productivity due to absenteeism
or medical leave. This is a cost that Malaysia can ill afford.

Argument 3: Rebuttal : harm to low-

income families
Moving on to my second argument. Government can use these
revenue to help low-income
Moving on to my second argument, families & financing subsidies
Raise Revenue for healthy foods.
- Through this fat tax, the government could raise substantial sums of
money. This could serve as an incentive for the government to offset
other taxes such as road tax or decrease the basic rate of VAT (Value-
added Tax)

- Money raised from fat taxes can be used to spend on treating the
health costs of obesity.
 Reaffirm stand:

In closing, I have put forth two new arguments that support the
motion that is this house would impose tax on junk food.

3RD AFFIRMATIVE

Opening:

Thank you Ms/Mr Speaker of the house. Good afternoon I bid to

the honourable adjudicators, distinguished timekeepers, my
worthy opponents and last but not least, members of the floor.

REBUT 2ND NEGATIVE: Possibilities:

The second opposition speaker
Members of the floor, the opposition has tried so hard to mentioned that taxes might be
convince that THIS HOUSE WOULD IMPOSE TAX ON JUNK ineffective. Haven’t you been
FOOD They have tried to spin webs of confusion over our listening to the argument my first
common sense. Well, I’ve news for you, my misguided speaker has just mentioned? Let
opponents. We are not the least convinced.
The second opposition speaker mentioned that
………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
……………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
me remind you of the argument
stated not too long ago. They
mentioned that junk food taxes that
have been imposed in countries
like Hungary and Mexico have
shown results through a decline in
purchases of junk food. Isn’t that
more than enough proof? The case
that you are building that taxes on
junk food might be ineffective is
totally weak and unjustifiable.
Next, the second opposition
speaker also mentioned that taxes
can lead to loss of jobs. Well, I
strongly believe that this argument
is absolutely false. Why aren’t you
thinking about the new job
opportunities that will emerge if
people decide to eat healthier? For
example, more job opportunities
will be available in the healthy food
farming industry if the demand for
healthy food rises. This can further
improve our economic stability
alongside the health of the citizens
REBUT 1ST NEGATIVE: Possibilities:

Next, the first opposition speaker said that

………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
……………………

…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………
Reaffirm case:

In conclusion, the government firmly believes that this house

would impose tax on junk food. The opposition may try as they
will to deceive us into denying this fact; but the truth shall speak
for itself.This house would impose tax on junk food or else we
would not be here.

With that, I reaffirm our stand as the Government that the

motion today:

This house would impose tax on junk food – will stand. Not just
because we know we are right, but common sense tells us so
too. Otherwise, WHY are we here today?

Thank you.