The Instigator
CarlaJMena
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
bennourse
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Fast Food restaurants should be banned from the U.S.

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 4 votes the winner is...
bennourse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,390 times Debate No: 23955
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

CarlaJMena

Pro

In this debate, i will argue about how fast food restaurants should be banned in the U.S. If anyone would like to debate, accept this challenge.

Rules :

No trolling
No swearing
No inappropriate content

First round acceptance.
bennourse

Con

I will argue against pro and how fast food restaurants shouldn't be banned from the U.S.
Debate Round No. 1
CarlaJMena

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate, good luck on this arguement.

Now Junk food affects kids on their health & social life.

Eating a lot of junk food is one of the reasons people are getting sick and dying. There are a lot of sugar in junk food. And when you eat a lot of sugar you get diabetes. Over 20 million people in the US have diabetes.' When you eat, your intestines break the food down into sugar. The blood vessels then carry the sugar through out your body. Your pancreas make and releases insulin when the sugar passes through the blood stream. The insulin lets the sugar move through the bloodstream into your cells where it is used for energy. If your body cannot produce insulin, the sugar stays in the bloodstream where it will travel through the bodies organs, damaging it.' Obesity plays a big part in junk food. Over 500 million people worldwide. Being obese and eating a lot of garbage can affect you in school. When you dont eat breakfast, minerals and a lot of nutrition, you dont do well in class. Being obese can also affect your performance like in physical education. Bullies also aim for the obese because they seem to have a low self- esteem. Which makes them unhappier about themselves and can lead to being ore violent. It can also lead you to have depression and anxiety problems.

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.aacap.org...
http://ezinearticles.com...
http://www.webmd.boots.com...
bennourse

Con

And I thank you for allowing me to debate this issue, it's one I'm very interested in and I shall do my best to give an interesting slant to the argument, let's debate!

Your argument so far is the effect of junk food on people's health. I wholly accept the importance of this and it is undeniable about how in excess, junk food is harmful.

However I find an issue with what you're saying. You seem to be just pointing out the negative effects rather than questioning why people eat junk food in excess or why they feel the need to resort to it. Why do people eat junk food in harmful amounts is a question which lies at the controversy of this problem.

I say that it isn't the junk foods fault; those who eat it, and their problems, that is the fault. No matter what their circumstances, they do have the decision with whether to eat it or not. Now, of course it isn't a simple matter, but we have to give them some personal responsibility for what they put into their own bodies because if you give people some control over themselves and give them the situation to make decisions for themselves and to improve through different means (like counselling and promotion of accepting people who are different from the "norm" if such a thing exists) then they will be happier and treat their body better than they would if we just blamed the substance rather than trying to find what the actual fault is. We have to have more faith in the people because they're much more intelligent than what we give them credit for and similarly, we must not just blame the junk food.

Parents feeding their children fast food is wrong in the extremes; in the moderate cases it isn't. We have to question why do certain parents feed their children fast food in the obscene amount. It isn't the junk food's fault because again, we have to put responsibility on the individual and not think that if we took the junk food away it would make these kids and people happier because junk food isn't necessarily the problem. You do get people who are genuinely obsessed and addicted with junk food, but even these cases (as it is with drug addicts, alcoholics and other addictions) it is the individuals fault because they ate in excess rather than choosing a healthier alternative; the substance isn't forcing them to take it, the substance is not to be demonised wrongly because it isn't forcing itself to be consumed.

Now you have the other group that I briefly mentioned who eat it because of other issues they have. The food isn't the problem, the real problem is with themselves. Junk food didn't cause the problem, junk food is a coping mechanism for these people and getting rid of it will not help them, it will just teach them to go from one substance to another to cope. Discussion and therapy with these extreme cases is the best way to help them in the long run.

To add to this, what happened to adults being able to do what they want with their lives? We should allow individuality and we should allow people to eat and put whatever they want into their bodies. However we should provide them with the facts (as you have) and provide them with the opinions of others and let them decide for themselves. If you had it your way, then alcohol would have to be banned because of alcoholics and smoking would have to be banned because of those smoking all day and so on. The more responsibility you give the people, the happier and freer they are and the better the state or nation will be.

You also mentioned bullying. Again, we must question why bullying occurs rather than just saying "get rid of junk food because it causes obesity which leads to bullying". Studies have shown that you're more likely to be bullied if you're obese and you're also more likely to be bullied if you're part of another minority (e.g. Ethnicity apart from white and if you're not straight). Now, people are always going to be different and we shouldn't say that people cannot be obese because that is infringing on their rights (just as we cannot say that people can't smoke, or people can't wear certain clothes ) but if they choose to want to change and be healthier, then there should be support for them to help them do that too. Society should accommodate for individuality; individuality shouldn't be condemned for the sake of society.

I understand where you're coming from, and trust me, I know you are doing it for the best. But, in order to help reduce bullying, to reduce anxieties and depression and other negative things against people who are different, including the obese, then we shouldn't

Sources:

Info on bullying and obesity: http://www.cbsnews.com...

Food as an addictive substance/a coping mechanism: http://abcnews.go.com...

Fast food facts and children: http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org...

Help in obesity and underlying problems: http://obesity-therapy.most-effective-solution.com...
Debate Round No. 2
CarlaJMena

Pro

I totally understand what your saying, but im not explaining that its the junk foods fault, its the people who are serving it and adding all these terrible calories in them. Now, you can count on hamburger sold to McDonald's being sourced from a factory farm where animals are mistreated and more likely to be sick. They combine meat from hundreds of animals to assure uniformity in taste. This increases the risk of many diseases being spread to humans. MSG is often added to ingredients to mask any unpleasant tastes. Aspartame is added to diet sodas.

If you purchase meat from a local grocer, there is some chance that the meat will be from just one cow. The cow may even be grass fed, which improves the flavor and health of the animal. And all im saying is that parents should be giving kids fresh and healthy homemade hamburgers, not those disgustingly high calorie hamburgers.
bennourse

Con

You haven't addressed my points from the previous round; why shouldn't people be allowed to eat what they wish as long as they are provided with the right nutritional information and the facts of the food? If people are given the facts of what they're putting in their body and know the risks and the nutritional information, they should have the choice to do so.

And it's now the people who work at the fast food places' fault? They are just doing a job that the large majority of them don't care about and are just working to make the ends meet. As for the calories, MSG and Aspartame, my point still stands; as long as they are are given the explicit information (which needs to be clear, which arguably isn't) then they are well within the rights of the law to put it in (as long as it isn't fatally harmful or fatal in the quantities they are going to eat it) and the people who feed themselves or feed their children are responsible, not the institution.

There is no evidence that meat from multiple animals increases the risk of disease spreading to humans.

I agree with you that in excess it is wrong and should be discouraged, however to say that people cannot eat certain foods is wrong if they're adults. As for parents of children, in excess it is possibly harmful in the extremes, but in moderation it is anything but. What if people cannot afford to make fresh food? What if they need to buy frozen ready-cooked food?
Debate Round No. 3
CarlaJMena

Pro

Yeah but the people are ok with customers eating 700 - 1500 calorie hamburgers? Hell no! And why did they pick that specific job to work? Cant they make something better for themselves than serving junk food? Its not a coincidence that they magically get that job. And no, at times fast food restaurants don't give the RIGHT information. My niece went to mcdonald's to buy a big mac. She read that it was 470 calories. I was with her, and i didn't do anything about it because i did not want to upset her. Turns out the big mac really has 590 calories. Fast foods are lying so they don't look bad. Why do you think america is the fattest country in the world? People aren't controlling the way they are eating. At some point they will have a break through. And i never said adults shouldn't be able to eat certain types of food. I just said they shouldn't be allowed to eat JUNK food in america. Yes i do not have a problem with adults eating frozen meals instead BECAUSE it has a lot less fat, calories, and higher in nutrition than regular junk food. We should not be recognized as the fattest country in the world!
bennourse

Con

The customers aren't as stupid as you think they are; they know that junk food isn't healthy and no, they shouldn't be told that they can't eat it just because it is unhealthy. And I think Pro's attack on those who work at fast food places is unfounded and totally out of place in this debate. As well as this, on the point of people who work there, if you banned fast food places, not only are you telling people what they can and cannot eat but you are also depriving millions of Americans jobs in which they depend on to survive. And no, sometimes they can't get anything better, but why should they HAVE to get anything better? "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 2.7 million U.S. workers are employed in food preparation and serving (including fast food) as of 2008".[s1] It has now risen to over 3 million workers. What will you propose we do with all of these people suddenly out of work? They're contributing to society; they have a stable job and pay their taxes. Not everyone can be qualified to be a nurse or a Doctor; we depend on those who do menial jobs to be the foundation of our whole society. Without them we would crumble. I think Pro's attack on them for not living up to Pro's standards of level of qualification is callous and unfair for those who have to do the boring jobs in which they just work to make ends meet. And no it isn't a "magical coincidence", as pro puts it, because a lot of the time they take it because that's all they can get, they don't see it as a career choice. You need to keep your personal feelings out of the debate and keep focused on rational and logical reasoning rather than letting your emotions intrude on the persuasiveness of your points.

As for the nutritional side, ever since the documentary "Super size me" in 2004 a lot has changed, e.g., the "super size" has been taken off of the menu in McDonalds. As well as the portions being limited more than they were, it is also allowing for healthier food: "Not all fast food is bad. Today, more and more fast food restaurants are offering healthier options and new menu items. There are also ways you can customize your order to be healthy for you" [s2]. Now it is healthier than ever before. Granted, it isn't the healthiest of food, but it is up to the individual to moderate what they put into their bodies because, again, the more responsibility we give the populace the more they'll make intelligent individual judgement rather than relying on being herded around in life waiting for orders on how to live and what to put into their bodies.

I agree with you that information has to be given to the nutritional content of the food, but fast food shouldn't be banned for the reasons I have stated.

You go on to claim that you never said adults shouldn't be able to eat certain types of food, but then you go on to say "I just said they shouldn't be allowed to eat JUNK food in America". There is no discernible difference; you are saying that people shouldn't be able to eat one type of food because you think it's wrong, which is you saying you want to control what they eat which shouldn't be, and thankfully isn't, the case. Also, it depends what frozen food you are talking about on whether it is healthier than fast food. For example a relatively measely portion of frozen DiGiorno pizza (the most popular brand of frozen pizza) has the following nutritional content: "Serving Size: 1/6 pizza, Calories: 310, Fat: 10g, Carbs: 38g, Protein: 16g"[s3]. So when compared with a big mac which has 590 calories, they are relatively the same for calories considering a sixth of pizza isn't as big as a big mac. So in order for Pro's argument to stand she must also realise that not only would she have to ban "fast food", but frozen food too because it can be equally as unhealthy. Also, if it is based on the food being unhealthy then I suppose Pro would also want smoking, alcohol and anything else that could be harmful to be banned. This is an absurd concept and idea, but Pro is hinting heavily toward that in the rationale of her reasoning. People should have the choice, it isn't Pro's place to enforce her morals and her beliefs on everyone else, societies do not work that way.

Finally, I'd like to give a quote on the charity that McDonald's is involved with, "There are currently 305 Ronald McDonald Houses in 52 countries and regions. Ronald McDonald Houses act as a home away from home so families can stay close by their hospitalized child. Ronald McDonald Houses provide over 7,200 bedrooms to families around the world each night, with an estimated value of $257 million in lieu of hotel costs" [s4]. Not only would it make over 3 million people jobless, and not only would it infringe on the rights of individuals to put what they wish into their bodies, but it would also have a huge impact on the charity which the institutions give. Granted, the example wouldn't show much if Pro was debating that junk food is simply unhealthy then it'd be irrelevant, but Pro wants to ban fast food altogether, and so all of the acts of those institutions would be torn down along with it.

To sum up, no, Pro hasn't shown that Fast food should be banned in the US. Pro has pointed out in the first round the damage it can have in excessive amounts on the body and hasn't addressed those who eat it in healthy amounts, and Pro has shown a passionate dislike for unhealthy food. What Pro hasn't done is accounted for the points I raised about individuality and the right of a person to eat what they wish. She claimed to not be arguing this, but then by saying she only wants people to not eat fast food or junk food shows that she's actually very confused in her wording and in what she's trying to get across in this discussion. Pro hasn't argued for more awareness of nutrition in fast food; Pro never said anything along the lines of giving choice to those who eat fast food and educating them more but has said that we should get rid of all fast food outlets altogether, from the big corporate McDonalds to the one hot dog stand New-Yorker; all is unacceptable in Pro's eyes because of her own morals. I say that Pro is wrong to want to stop people from eating the food stuffs they wish and Pro hasn't sufficiently argued against my points raised and the sources brought forward, let alone provided a solid basis for her own point of view which was weakened by her anger towards the issue.

Sources:

http://www.pamf.org... [s2]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [s1]
http://www.myfitnesspal.com... [s3]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [s4]
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheOrator 1 year ago
TheOrator
Believed with Bennourse's side before the round* I beleived he won due to dropped arguments.
Posted by TheOrator 1 year ago
TheOrator
Oh, I understand how unhealthy they are, but the fact of the matter is that people have to physically choose to eat these, and I'm a believer in free market economy, so that's why I believed with Bennourse's side. That's also why I disagreed when that one lady sued McDonald's for getting fat.

That being said, my condolences for your lost.
Posted by bennourse 1 year ago
bennourse
I think they do know, but I'm sorry a loved one of yours died from it.
Posted by CarlaJMena 1 year ago
CarlaJMena
The reason i stopped putting up my sources was because most of the info on my debate where personal experiences. And yes i did put emotion into this because junk food has killed one close to me. And i dont think people are realizing how unhealthy these foods are.
Posted by bennourse 1 year ago
bennourse
Emotion isn't bad in debate I think as long as it isn't on its own. It's good to be passionate and fiery, but there has to be substance behind it or it kind of falls flat.
Posted by CliffTheCorrupt 1 year ago
CliffTheCorrupt
Carla, I think you might want to learn a bit more about factual arguments before your next debate. You get wrecked because you turn your debates into emotionally charge ones, and you stop citing sources when you do that, I notice.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 1 year ago
TheOrator
CarlaJMenabennourseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of Con's arguments were completely dropped, and the only thing pro actually proved was fast food is unhealthy, which I think we all already knew.
Vote Placed by mee2kool4u369 1 year ago
mee2kool4u369
CarlaJMenabennourseTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Fast food restraints are trying to become healthier. Con wins my vote.
Vote Placed by CalvinAndHobbes 1 year ago
CalvinAndHobbes
CarlaJMenabennourseTied
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 provided emotional rambling more worthy to be followed by "Cool story bro" than a debate win. On a more important note Con went unrefuted.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 1 year ago
Mrparkers
CarlaJMenabennourseTied
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 didn't meet burden of proof and Con's arguments went unrefuted