The Instigator
CrazyMonkey
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
feverish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 19,248 times Debate No: 7563
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

CrazyMonkey

Pro

Fast food is not good for us and America is having enough weight problems as it is. Mc. Donalds for example: Mc Donalds has 101 items on its menu. Out of those items 74 are over 200 calories. The items under that amount of calories include
Salad Dressing (which is still 190) 4 piece mc nugget, eggs, a cookie (1 cookie is 160 cal.) Yogurt, hash browns, ect. Not the really Big items. Did you know that 1 small order of fries has 210 calories in it. 210 calories in a small side order! That is over 1/10 of the amount of calories you are supposed to consume in a day in 1 SMALL side order! There are 540 calories in a large order, Which is alone without
a drink or the actual meal. That 1 order of fries has about the same # of calories in it as a person should eat per meal.
Source
http://www.foodfacts.info...
feverish

Con

Hi,

I'll keep this brief.

Fast food is indeed very unhealthy but should not be made illegal.
If you begin banning individual foodstuffs you are at the thin end of a wedge. You would logically have to move on to things such as cake, fizzy drinks etc. then cigarettes and alcohol would logically also have to be banned as these kill people.
This would gradually lead to an erosion of our civil liberties and would be a terrible example of 'the nanny state'.
A country that values Freedom cannot justify making fast food illegal, whatever the health risks.

Now go get a happy meal! (no disrespect.)

Thankyou and good luck to my youthful opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
CrazyMonkey

Pro

I am sure some of you people viewing this will think that
Making fast food illegal is beyond, but think about it.
Fast food is terrible for the body and you can really see
That I'm the documentary super-size me, when Morgan
Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's for one whole month and
Ended up seriously damaging his liver.
He also ended up gaining 24 pounds that took him 14 months to lose
Almost everyone knows that fast food is bad for them but they still
keep going there. Informing them hasn't stopped them from eating and McDonald's
Still has their "billions a d billions served" sign is up. It seems the only way to stop
People from eating that junk is to get rid of it.
There Are probably 2 ways of doing this: 1 tax the doo-doo out of them until they go out of business,
or 2 making it illegal or close down their businesses so they can't give their product to the public thus eliminating a source for unhealthy food that is making America fat.

if you do not. believe me go look up super size me and see for yourself.
feverish

Con

Hello again.

I strongly reaffirm the arguments I made in the first round; that making fast food illegal is not justified and would be contrary to an individuals basic rights and freedom.
As my opponent has not responded directly to this assertion, I can only assume that we are in agreement.

To take this point further, it is people's own responsibility to look after themselves and eat sensibly. If banning fast food one would logically have to ban all sorts of non-consumable products as well. Items such as automobiles and guns are clearly very dangerous if not used appropriately and are in fact much worse than fast-food as they can harm others just as much as they can harm the people using them.

The issue of taxation my opponent raises makes more sense, although I would argue that the products themselves as well as the companies should be taxed, thus making the products less appealing. Yes, Burger King is tasty but more people go to McDonald's because it is cheaper.

On the subject of the documentary 'Super Size Me' I would argue that as much as being an example of how unhealthy fast food is, it is a demonstration of the need to have a BALANCED diet. Man can not live by bread alone and if you ate nothing but bread or rice-crispies or pizza for a month, this would also be extremely detrimental to your health.
All substances are poisonous, it is the dose that determines the effects.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
CrazyMonkey

Pro

Okay! hello all! :) Let me open with this non-sequator and I'm sure you all have heard it: NEVER ask a women how much she weighs EVER!!! She got all pissed off and called her 6 ft. 7 in. boyfriend over and he tried to KILL me!!! He chases me for a good 2 miles saying he was going to kick my tush the whole time, not a happy day :( okay now back to the debate! my opponent says that it should be ever ones' own responsibility about fast food, and I'm sure most of you agree with him. However please listen to me to. If you had to chose between a BigMac that will bite you in the butt when you get old and a salad you would probably choose the BigMac. But if the BigMac was out of the picture then you would choose the salad. Most people won't choose differently. the only way not to choose the BigMac is if there is no BigMac to choose. that is what the government can do to help. Getting rid of Fast food is good for the earth too. To make room for the cows McDonald's cuts down some of the rainforest, and cow crap releases a lot of gases into the air contributing to global warming. It's the penguins or a cheese burger people! also my opponent said that we would need to get rid of cars and guns as well. I agree they are bad but they are necessary evils. when was the last time you went to wallmart on a horse? And if we get rid of guns we will get owned by the other countries with guns. I think I have proved my point:

fast food= fat people fast food=global warming=no penguins
feverish

Con

My youthful opponent's arguments are certainly humorous but I don't think they make his case any stronger.
To quote:

"To make room for the cows McDonald's cuts down some of the rainforest, and cow crap releases a lot of gases into the air contributing to global warming. It's the penguins or a cheese burger people!"

While this argument might have some merit if we were debating: "Beef should be banned because of it's indirect negative impact on the environment" but that is not the subject of this debate.

"Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening" clearly covers all kinds of fast food; chicken nuggets, kebabs, hot dogs etc. as well as beef burgers. It also stipulates that the reason for banning these products is because they are fattening, not because of any environmental impact or other reason.

Unfortunately for my opponent, the way he has framed the debate means that, as Con I can provide any number of reasons why fast food should NOT be illegal but in arguing that it SHOULD be, Pro needs to restrict his reasoning to the health aspects and to proving my arguments wrong or he risks going completely off-topic. This may seem unfair but this is how my opponent instigated the debate.

"if we get rid of guns we will get owned by the other countries with guns."

This also belongs in another debate (coincidentally one I am having at the moment) but of course cars and guns are not a perfect comparison with fast-food in this case. Alcohol and cigarettes are a better one.

Vote for an individuals right to choose.
Vote Con.
Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 3
CrazyMonkey

Pro

ok I see why so many of you are against what I am proposing. it's not the fact that every big mac we eat is going to bite us in the butts one day, it's that we should have the right to eat at McDonald's. But if we are to think along those lines why shouldn't we be allowed to do drugs, or kids be allowed to smoke and drink. shouldn't we be aloud to do those to? you will probably say no we shouldn't, but what is the difference between drugs/drinking/smoking and fast food. the difference I see is that drugs will hurt you faster than fast food will, trust me I know. my grandfather was a very active man. he played almost every sport you can name, but he loved hardy's. he had a cquadrouple bypass in his fifties. I have seen the effects of fast food in the long run: my uncle liked getting a milkshake and a burger at McDonald's. two months ago he ran a marathon. this month he had a triple bypass. what I don't think we get is; sure we can just let it be, but our life exspectantcy is dropping for the first time in history. how long can we wait? the interesting thing about my uncle is he is one of the skinniest men I know and he has heart troubles in his fifties. that shows you don't have to get fat from it to have problems resulting from it. If government doesn't ban it until it becomes one of the leading causes of death in Americans what of all those people who it is too late for? and if the health part isn't worth a fart doesn't this country have any pride? do we not mind being the fastest country on earth? would you mind being thought of as "those fat Americans" cause if we keep it up that is where we will be and I'll say " I told you so" then I'm going to china. I don't know about you, but I don't like being the world's fast eat country
ore the land of the free and the home of the soon to be "supersized"
feverish

Con

I have argued my logic of people's right to choice throughout this debate and my opponent does not seem keen to dispute this argument. I re-affirm these points and will now offer a more light-hearted argument in keeping with my opponent's style of debate. This is not intended disrespectfully or as any kind of parody.

When unhealthy fast-food type meals, (burger and chips etc.) were taken off school dinner menus in England, the response of many furious parents was to pass junk food items through the playground fences to their already obese kids. See:
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-479541/School-meals-service-meltdown-Jamie-Olivers-healthy-food-turns-400-000-pupils.html

Banning an in-demand product never comes close to stopping people getting it; look at illegal drugs or at prohibition of alcohol.
Creating a black-market network of health-regulation-defying renegade burger-vans does not strike me as a good idea.
I think we're better off with maccy-dees, evil blood-sucking corporate monster that they are, at least people KNOW what goes into their junk food with big companies.

Vote Con
Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 4
CrazyMonkey

Pro

CrazyMonkey forfeited this round.
feverish

Con

Thanks to my opponent, readers and voters.
Fast food is indeed fattening but it would not be justified to make it illegal.
Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dk2852 6 years ago
dk2852
I don't see why not, after all marijuana, a much safer substance than fast food, is illegal. The government has show it will legalize substances which aren't dangerous, they should make fast food illegal because it actually is unhealthy and causes diseases.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
feverish, Yes, that's a defect in the site. My remedy is to let people vote once they have completed, say, five debates. The verification is to discourage vote bombing by people creating multiple accounts. Not many people would persist through five debates for that purpose.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Yes it's still me monkey.

Just so people know, as the identity confirmation system only accepts US (10 digit) mobiles, I like most UK users am unable to vote for myself (or anyone else).
Nice idea though Roy, about asking friends to check out debates your losing, I might try that with some of my others.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Crazy, I think you may be confused by the voting scheme here. Only three votes have been cast. Each voter gets to place up to seven points. I presume that each debater voted for themselves -- although there is no way to tell. If you think the debate deserves more attention, you might send private messages to to your site friends and ask them to look at the debate. Let the debate speak for itself rather than asking for votes.
Posted by CrazyMonkey 7 years ago
CrazyMonkey
ok could someone please humor me and vote pro? I am ok losing but not by double! :(
Posted by CrazyMonkey 7 years ago
CrazyMonkey
wow you changed your picture is it you?
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Thanks for the feed-back Roy
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The debate was quickly pushed to the second page by a flood of concluding debates, so I guess many people have missed it.

Pro didn't defend at all against the rebuttal that it is violation of individual freedom to ban things which are "bad" by some definition. That fundamentally concedes the debate.

Con should have pressed harder on the definition of fast food. McDonald serves up salads. Are they supposed to be banned on the grounds that they are fast? Ultimately the problem is not at all with the food, it is with the eaters. There is nothing wrong with fast food, provided its eaten in moderation.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
For some reason this debate doesn't seem to be showing up in the list of debates in the voting period. Anyone got any ideas why?
Posted by Interrobang 7 years ago
Interrobang
Yes, but not every restaurant job is constantly changing, and there aren't new jobs being created every millisecond in that industry, especially now. The majority of the laid-off fast food workers would be unable to get a new job.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
CrazyMonkeyfeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:25 
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 7 years ago
TheCategorical
CrazyMonkeyfeverishTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
CrazyMonkeyfeverishTied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
CrazyMonkeyfeverishTied
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