The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Competition should never be against food companies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Stonewall
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 38766
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Adam2

Pro

McDonald's is a good example of why food companies should never have competition. McDonald's is garbage. I'm sorry. I'm the first to say it. Aside from it's disgusting logo, lol, they are in it 100% for money, which is why food sucks. It tastes like doodoo but that's a different story. It has promotions. Gangsta rappers, hip hop. Etc. Great food never is from competitive food companies. Competition should be for other types of companies, not for the delicious food that we eat, that gives us the energy to compete with others. That's not to confuse this with communism.
Stonewall

Con

"Aside from it's disgusting logo..."

First of all, this point is absolutely irrelevant. Second, even if it did have something to do with the debate, I fail to see how the logo is "disgusting". It's simplistic, immediately recognizable, and has not changed one bit for 50-ish years. If anything, it's the posterboy of logos.

"...which is why food sucks. It tastes like doodoo but that's a different story."

I assume you mean, "why their food sucks." Anyways, it hardly does. It's near impossible to find food that costs that little that tastes that good. I mean, it's not gourmet by any standards, but it's far from "doodoo". You even say above that this has nothing to do with your main point, so why bring up these irrelevant ones?

"It has promotions. Gangsta rappers, hip hop. Etc."

I need some clarification. Like, do you have a problem with rappers in particular sponsoring their food? So have world-class athletes and actors. Justin Timberlake, Venus Williams, Samuel L. Jackson, Yao Ming, Michael Jordan, and plenty of others (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_advertising) (The Wikipedia link will not work for some reason, but can be found by searching for "McDonald's advertising" on the site).

If you have a problem with promotion in general, this has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the product. What, just because a high-class, five-star restaurant in New York has advertising, it's worse than some cheap taco stand down the road that does not? I believe this is the crux of your argument, in which case it makes no sense. The amount of advertising a company invests in has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the food. If anything, the more a company can advertise, the more food they have probably sold, which does not tend to happen with poor-quality food.

"Great food never is from competitive food companies."

Fast food isn't supposed to be great, it's supposed to be fast, hence the title. Nine times out of ten, I'd rather have a 2.5-star burger in one minute than a 5-star burger in twenty-five minutes.

"Competition should be for other types of companies, not for the delicious food that we eat, that gives us the energy to compete with others..."

Okay, let's entertain this idea for a second: No more advertising for fast food companies. Now, a couple of questions: How fast does the food have to be to be considered "fast" food? What if a 5-star restaurant has your dinner ready in two minutes? Can this place not advertise because the food was fast? If McDonald's decided to cook their food more slowly, would it cease to be a fast food restaurant, even if the food is exactly the same? Can they now advertise? Does the star-ranking of a restaurant speak to if they are "fast" food? There's absolutely no way to implement such an idea, and it's a poor idea in the first place due to the fact that advertising has nothing to do with quality of food.

And what is this "competing with others" thing? Like, business-wise or physically? This seems random, as does the communism comment.
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

I never said that food companies shouldn't have free-market. After all making money is a natural part. But seriously, McDonald's food sucks. Fast food in general sucks. And they're in it for money. 100 percent too. Reason why, an unhealthy amount of competition. McDonald's is a competition-loving company in the first place. Fame and good food don't mix.

Why do you think supermarket products are much better. They do it because they love giving people something fresh and delicious. They don't do it to compete with another. McDonald's is the complete opposite.
Stonewall

Con

"But seriously, McDonald's food sucks. Fast food in general sucks."

Again, that's totally subjective. But it's near undeniable that it's the best food you can get for the price.

"...they're in it for money. 100 percent too... McDonald's is a competition-loving company in the first place. Fame and good food don't mix."

Like I said in my last point, fast good isn't supposed to be great, it's supposed to be fast. You think that the food would be better if the advertising stopped? The food was always of such quality, it's just that the advertising increased.

"Why do you think supermarket products are much better."

Citation needed. In whatever case, it's been said more than once in this debate that advertising has zilch to do with food quality.

"They do it because they love giving people something fresh and delicious."

Heheh, yeah right. Citation needed. If they just wanted to give us something fresh and delicious, why would they make it much more expensive than fast food corporations?

In conclusion, my opponent has said that fast food companies are basically greedy corporations who feed us garbage because they want more money from their advertising (I'm taking a couple liberties with that, but Pro made it political first). This is clearly not the case, because advertising and promotion has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the food as my opponent has tried to insist. Many of my points have gone unrefuted, and the basis for Pro's argument is questionable at best.

Vote for whoever made the better argument.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NateTheFirst 3 years ago
NateTheFirst
Missed it by 45 seconds... dam
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 3 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Adam2StonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no arguments whatsoever. Spelling and Grammar go to Con because they actually took the time to form organized arguments while Pro made no attempt to actually organize a case. Since Pro used no sources whatsoever, Con also wins sources.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Adam2StonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the responsibility of writing a clear resolution, and it was never clear what Pro was advocating. The only way to have no competition is for all food to be provided by one company or by the government, and with no competition there would be no reason for the owner of the monopoly to supply good food. con struggled to find the meaning and defeated each of Pro's arguments independent of what the resolution was supposed to mean. Pro needed strong sources to support his numerous opinions, but he provided none. Con missed some arguments: people should have freedom of choice, and if McDonald's food was bad it wouldn't be the best selling brand. No matter, an easy win for Con. Pro should work on writing clear resolutions that can be supported with facts.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Adam2StonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just idiotically stated his opinion of McDonalds and tried to use that as his whole argument.... Clear win by the con