Variable name	Krippendorff’s alpha
Source: American Beverage Association representative	0.8
Source: Other beverage industry representative	0.8
Source: Industry affiliated group working to oppose SSB tax or other local tax efforts (e.g., No Berkeley Beverage Tax, Californians for Food & Beverage Choice, Enough Is Enough: Don’t Tax Our Groceries, No Oakland Grocery Tax - No on Measure HH, No on O1 campaign)	0.9
Source: Business representative (not related to beverage industry)	0.8
Source: Medical personnel or public health advocate	0.9
Source: Researcher–Academic (affiliated with a university) or think tank, policy center, etc., quoted in their research capacity	0.8
Source: City or county official (Alameda or San Francisco counties)	0.9
Source: Other state or federal (non-local) government official	0.8
Source: Other news source	0.9
Source: SSB tax coalition affiliate (e.g., Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition, Berkeley vs. Big Soda, Vote Yes on V, “Oakland vs. Big Soda,” “Coalition for Healthy Oakland Children,' Yes on O1 campaign)	1.0
Argument 1a: Diet-related chronic diseases are a problem.	0.9
Argument 1b: These diseases cost the country/community money.	1.0
Argument 1c: Diet-related chronic diseases are not a (high-priority) problem.	1.0
Argument 2a: SSBs/sugar plays a unique role in causing health harms.	0.9
Argument 2b: SSBs do not play a unique role in causing health harms.	0.9
Argument 3a: The tax will cause people to consume less SSBs.	0.8
Argument 3b: An SSB tax will raise money for prevention/health programs.	0.8
Argument 3d: Tax won't cause people to consume less SSBs, people will just buy SSBs from somewhere else (replacement argument).	0.8
Argument 3f: The tax structure isn’t sustainable to raise funds for health programs or the money isn’t funding health programs anyway.	1.0
Argument 4a: This tax will benefit/improve/not negatively affect the economic health of the community/country (includes statements of how much money is being raised).	0.9
Argument 4b: It will balance the budget.	1.0
Argument 4c: This tax will (financially) harm local business, or the industry as a whole.	0.9
Argument 4d: This tax will (financially) harm local consumers.	0.8
Argument 4e: This tax is confusing, complicated, hard to implement (logistics).	1.0
Argument 4f: The tax will raise the price of food or drinks across the board.	0.9
Argument 5a: The beverage industry is behaving badly in general (in terms of marketing/targeting, etc.).	0.9
Argument 5b: The beverage industry/SSB tax opponents are behaving badly in efforts related to addressing SSB taxes.	0.8
Argument 5d: The beverage industry/SSB tax opponents are not behaving badly in this campaign.	1.0
Argument 6b: This tax is a ‘good first step’ or ‘precedent setting.’	0.9
Argument 6d: “It works in Berkeley, but it doesn’t or won’t work here” or “We aren’t Berkeley.”	1.0
Argument 7a: People of color and people living in poverty will benefit most from this tax.	1.0
Argument 7b: People of color and people living in poverty are targeted by industry or (disproportionately) harmed by the product.	1.0
Argument 7c: People of color and people living in poverty will suffer most from this tax (tax is regressive).	0.9