Burning off calories you never consume isn't possible(thermodynamics), therefor anything with that level of caloric density is a plus to not consume when most people are overweight, ALREADY. You are starting from the wrong side of the coin, I am afraid.
I quite literally stated:
Your waistline and liver are very appreciative.
Having a fatty liver and fat waistline can be done without even being obese as per BMI. Your tangent doesn't even consider this, that is the variables I mentioned, explicitly. You injected additional variables and...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[11] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
Please quote where I said anything differently instead of attacking a strawman.
Additionally, if you were to consume 2000 calories of soda, it obviously isn't the same as other foods and you may not end up with the same body chemistry from doing so over say 2000 calories of broccoli or lentils. No fiber, protein, calcium, vitamin K, vitamin C, etc.
I also mentioned the liver. Your own source says:
But that doesn't mean it's OK to eat junk food. "These foods aren't good for you," he said. "There is no good argument for soda in your diet."
Do you know why that is?