The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Koopin
Con (against)
Winning
77 Points

Debate.org members* should join the boycott of KFC

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,609 times Debate No: 11554
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (57)
Votes (18)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Tender, succulent pieces of chicken coated in delicious herbs and spices and deep-fried until they are a crispy golden-brown – absolutely scrumptious! Yes, I really love KFC. In fact, I very much doubt that there's any Debate.org member who likes KFC as much as I do.

Shame they might go bust then, isn't it?

That's right, with the support of the members of this site, the boycott of KFC in America will grow to a point where their losses will be unsustainable and they will either be forced to clean up their act or close their doors altogether.

That's because the cruelty KFC inflicts on the 1 billion chickens they kill every year in the United States has incensed countless decent Americans who are absolutely appalled at their animal welfare abuses and who are now boycotting KFC restaurants. (1)

Let's be in no doubt, the level of suffering that KFC's factory farmers inflict upon chickens would be illegal in most civilised countries and, outside the United States, KFC is forced to source birds from farms where animal welfare standards are set high and are strictly monitored by government vets. (2)

Sadly, however, the US government tolerates KFC's American suppliers' disgusting farming practices and KFC's only reference to the cruelty involved in the rearing of their poultry is to state that it is their "goal to only deal with suppliers who…share our commitment to animal welfare". (3)

You will have noted, no doubt, that they use the term "goal" rather than "policy" and do not explain what their "commitment to animal welfare" actually is.

Now, of course KFC chicken is very tasty but surely the thought of the abject misery and pain that some bird has suffered to provide you with your meal will persuade you to do the right thing and boycott KFC – I know I certainly will the next time I visit America.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com...
(2) http://www.kfc.co.uk...
(3) http://www.kfc.com...

* Resolution is limited to Debate.org members resident in or visiting the United States of America.
Koopin

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate

=============================
DEFFINITIONS
=============================

KFC: A chain of fast food restaurants based in Louisville, Kentucky. KFC primarily sells chicken pieces, wraps, salads and sandwiches. While its primary focus is fried chicken, KFC also offers a line of roasted chicken products, side dishes and desserts. [1]
Boycott: To combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion [2]

============================
ARGUMENT
===========================

To sum up my opponents last argument, he believes that the members Debate.org should boycott KFC because it will make KFC change their ways.
This is very wrong.
For years PETA has been trying to get KFC to stop buying from the animal abusers.
The members of Debate.org make up 17,756.
Although this may look like a big number, there are roughly 303,824,640 Americans!
KFC would most likely not even notice that big of a loss in revenue, they would simply lay off a few people.
In the end, debate.org members would simply lose the pleasure of eating at KFC.

Many people see the videos that PETA put up of people brutally beating chickens one by one.
They also show how the chickens live in a horrible environment.
This is not the case with all KFC birds.

I worked on a large chicken farm last summer and saw how the chickens are treated.
They were clean and well fed.
The farmer explained how PETA looks for the worst case they can find and says that all of KFC's farms are like this.
KFC gets their birds from many farms from all over the country.
Not every farm abuses their chickens.
It would cost KFC thousands upon thousands of dollars to send out private inspectors to every chicken farm where they get there chickens every six or so months.
The prices for KFC are already high due to the cost of chicken feed.
It would make the prices for the customers sky rocket.
The dollar menu would be non-existent.
It is a fact, some people just cannot and/or will not cook.
There are some people out there who eat out pretty much everyday.
I am sure that lots of these people are Debate.org members.
Since KFC is apart of Taco bell, Debate.org members would have a much smaller choice.

McDonalds is no where near healthy.
They have frozen old meat, unlike KFC.
KFC's meat is always fresh, and never frozen.
It is served within seven days of the kill date.
The chicken must be served within 1.5 - 2 hours or it must be discarded.
They do not reheat there food like McDonalds, Wendy's, and other popular food restaurants.
They even bread it on the spot!

If Debate.org members were to boycott anything, it would be better to boycott McDonalds.
We need to keep businesses like KFC alive to encourage other companies to make their food fresh.
Here is what an employee has to say about cooking fresh at KFC.

"As a KFC cook for nearly 18 years, I've continued the Colonel's tradition of serving my customers KFC Original Recipe chicken on the bone that is delivered and prepared fresh," said cook Tiffany Bakken at the Fort Dodge, Iowa KFC.
"While other chains say they make fresh meals, I've experienced firsthand that KFC maintains the highest standards by serving fresh KFC Original Recipe chicken on the bone prepared by a trained cook in our restaurants across the country"

In April 2007, KFC became one of the first restaurant companies to complete a transition to a zero grams trans fat per serving cooking oil for its signature fried chicken products and potato wedges.
While the large majority of the menu was impacted by the change in cooking oil at that time, a few menu items required additional reformulation to complete the transition.
With the introduction of the Fresh Tastes Best campaign, KFC also completes its menu transformation with all menu items now containing zero grams trans fat per serving.
Mac and cheese, biscuits and chicken potpie have joined the other favorites offering zero grams trans fat per serving while staying true to the flavorful and home-style taste KFC fans love. [3]

Something else to consider.
Even if KFC was shut down, or forced to downsize,many people would be put out of work.
Lots of these people needs these jobs, and can not afford to lose it in today's economy.
Not only would KFC employees be fired, but farmers as well.
farming in America is already a hard job, we need to keep all the farmers we can manage.

After all these things, there is still one more thing to say.
KFC is good, and the day that we let animals rule over humans is a sad day indeed.
Humans rule the animals, not the other way around.

The resolution has been negated.

Thank you.

Sources:
(1). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3). http://www.kfc.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Many thanks to Koopin for accepting this debate and for arguing his case so passionately - I have a presentiment that my opponent shares my deep appreciation of Colonel Sander's culinary creations, even though he might not be as concerned about where the chicken is sourced from as I am.

To begin with Koopin argues that with only 17,756 members, a Debate.org boycott of KFC would have little impact on overall consumption.

There are two points to make here:

Firstly, the Debate.org boycott of KFC will not take place in isolation, it will be part of the much bigger embargo organised by PETA which is supported by celebrities such as eighties throwback Pamela Anderson, Scouse crooner Sir Paul McCartney and Buddhist deity His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Secondly, Debate.org members are not just everyday people – they are people with the ability to influence others – that's why they are interested in debating rather than, say, hanging around crack-houses or twocking cars – so in addition to their own boycott they will be able to persuade their friends, family and colleagues to join the campaign.

Furthermore, it is not true that abstaining from KFC will result in the "loss of pleasure" as my opponent suggested – there are many ethical alternatives to KFC.

Additionally, American members of Debate.org will be able to consume as much as KFC they want and still go to bed with clear consciences if they visit European branches of KFC where the chickens used are reared in accordance with strict animal welfare legislation.

My opponent then kindly informs us that KFC chicken is, in fact, a health food because it us cooked in zero grams trans fat cooking oil. I am indebted to him for providing this information. However, although it is reassuring to know that KFC is playing a leading role in the fight against heart disease, I never argued that KFC was unhealthy, so the trans fat content of their cooking oil is irrelevant to this debate.

I do, however, accept that enhanced animal welfare leads to increased production costs and this may mean that the shareholders will receive slightly lower dividends or, possibly, there may be a marginal increase in price.

However, this will mean that KFC will operate on a level playing field with ethical fast food outlets and if they cannot compete then their restaurants will close and their rivals will open new outlets to cater for the increased demand.

This will not lead to a net decrease in jobs, of course, as the former KFC staff will find alternative employment in the new restaurants opened by KFC's rivals.

To close, Koopin wrote:

"KFC is good, and the day that we let animals rule over humans is a sad day indeed. Humans rule the animals, not the other way around."

I would go further and say KFC is not just good - it's outstanding. However I am not suggesting that the chickens should be appointed supervisors – although their staff management techniques may improve customer service – just that chickens destined for KFC's fryers should be raised in decent conditions and not subjected to any unnecessary suffering.

Thank you.
Koopin

Con

I thank my opponent for his last argument.

=============================
DEFINITIONS
=============================

Debate.org members: Members of a website called debate.org. These members are based in different countries such as the USA, Britain, Canada. Many of these members, sign up for debate.org yet fail to post any debates. [1]

============================
ARGUMENT
============================

You say that the debate.org members would be organized by PETA which is supported by celebrities. First of all, just because some celebrities support something, does not make it a good organization. Many more celebrities are for KFC. Most people do not even know the truth about PETA. PETA is a very hypocritical organization that kills most of the animals it "saves."

Public records show that PETA finds homes for 1 out of every 300 animals. They kill most of their animals, and even the PETA manager admitted this. Public records prove that in 2009 PETA, killed 97.3% of the animals received.

I see that you are basing your argument off of what PETA claims. PETA is nothing more than a group of people making money reporting false cases. PETA rakes in nearly $30 million each year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken. [2]

PETA lures people in by making false reports in order to get money. So after all this, do you think we should believe them on how KFC treats its chickens?

You claim that Debate.org members are not just ordinary people, that they have the ability to persuade people in joining them.
This is true to an extent, most people who sign up for this website never even get past ten debates. If all 17,756 were as good a debater as the members on the leader board, then KFC would have a problem. But they are not. There are only about 200 members who can actually debate on this site. Another thing to consider, there are others out there who are just as good debaters that would support KFC. Since KFC is in fact a better choice than many other fast food restaurants, they would have more facts to argue with. Nothing matters without the facts.

You say that there are many other ethical alternatives to KFC. While this is true, there would still be a loss of pleasure. No one can find the secret recipe, therefore some people will never be able to eat yummy KFC chicken again! KFC is known for its secrete recipe. For years, Colonel Harland Sanders carried the secret formula for his Kentucky Fried Chicken in his head and the spice mixture in his car. Today, the recipe is locked away in a safe in Louisville, Kentucky. Only a handful of people know that multi-million dollar recipe, and each is obligated to strict confidentiality by contract.

The Colonel developed the formula back in the 1930s when he operated the Sanders Court & Cafe restaurant and motel in Corbin, Kentucky. There, his blend of 11 herbs and spices first developed a loyal following of customers. [3]

You say that people could simply visit Britain to get their KFC. Many people on debate.org cannot afford to fly out to Britain to get their chicken. Anyway, how do you know that all the birds over there are treated right? PETA has simply not targeted them yet.

What I said about KFC being healthy does indeed apply to this debate. Like I said before, why should we boycott something that is better than the rest? We need to focus on getting other restaurants to follow KFC. If we buy at KFC, other restaurants will see that they need to change the way they prepare meat to get more customers. But if we boycott KFC, other restaurants will not have to worry about "health competition."

You say that it would be okay if KFC simply closed because other restaurants would simply open up. This goes along with the point I listed right above. Other restaurants would have no need to be healthy if their competition was gone. You then say that other restaurants would simply open up other restaurants and all the KFC employees would be okay. This would not be the case however. Many other people are unemployed already and looking for work, only a select few would get a job if any spots were open. Also, people are not opening new shops in today's economy. Less and less people are eating out, so place like McDonalds and Wendy's would most likely leave their stores the way it is. Therefore, more unemployed.
In the end, there would be way more Cons then Pros in closing down KFC. So why should debate.org members boycott it? Like I said before, if they were going to boycott anything why not McDonalds? They have frozen unhealthy fatty foods that are hurting Americans.KFC is McDonalds biggest enemy. Why would we want to give McDonalds total control? For this reason, I heavily urge a CON vote.

I thank my opponent for this very fun debate. He had many good points that I enjoyed.
I would also like to thank the audience for reading.

Sources:
(1). http://www.debate.org...
(2). http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
(3). http://www.kfc.com...
Debate Round No. 2
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Can you tell me why you'd vote pro?
Posted by thegodhand 6 years ago
thegodhand
Id vote pro but i dont have phone, cant figure how to send code to messenger either, could ya give me a code?

ps thumbs up if you got sent here by searching koopins tagline
Posted by thegodhand 6 years ago
thegodhand
Id vote pro but i dont have phone, cant figure how to send code to messenger either, could ya give me a code?

ps thumbs up if you got sent here by searching koopins tagline
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
If thats what you believe
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Lovelife, your votes were simplify vote bombing and can not in anyway be justified.
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
wtf I'm nowhere near vegan. I believe in being omnivor-ic.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
NOOOOOOOOOOOOo

How come the people who voted against me are vegans?
Posted by CrysisPillar 7 years ago
CrysisPillar
I was only forced to eat KFC a few times. I did not enjoy the tasteless dry and oily meat that itched my esophagus on the way down and blocked my trachea in the process, nor did I enjoy the biscuit which crumbled after the first bite with slabs of "KFC buttery spread" that tasted like plain flavored gelatin. Sorry, Koopin.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Why did you vote bomb?
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
How did con win this?
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by CrysisPillar 7 years ago
CrysisPillar
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 7 years ago
wmpeebles
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by bombmaniac 7 years ago
bombmaniac
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
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:15 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
brian_egglestonKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07