The Instigator
lmeyer
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Fast food is killing the nation

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...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,461 times Debate No: 21077
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

lmeyer

Con

In today's busy world it is no surprise that most people eat while their on the run. As well as the decline in the economy may also be another reason why to buy cheap lunch at Burger King or McDonald's. Without taking into consideration the damage that they are doing to their health and wallet. A revaluation on the part of American people is needed to secure the health.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

As PRO, I will be supporting the resolution that fast food is killing the nation.
By killing, it is meant that fast food has detrimental effects on the nation (it's economy, citizens, etc.) The nation in question will be the United States of America.

Let's start with a refutation.

In today's busy world it is no surprise that most people eat while their on the run. As well as the decline in the economy may also be another reason why to buy cheap lunch at Burger King or McDonald's.

This does not prove that fast food is not killing the nation.

Without taking into consideration the damage that they are doing to their health and wallet.

CON makes an argument for my side of the case. As fast food does damage to health and wallet, CON is saying that fast food indeed does kill the nation.

A revaluation on the part of American people is needed to secure the health.


This again, does not prove that fast food is not killing the nation.

Arguments.

It is obvious that obesity has been increasing in recent years in the states. http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is because of the large amount of fast food chains in the states, which is ever increasing in recent years as well. http://en.wikipedia.org...

As a result, it is obvious that the obesity rate increasing is caused by the increase in fast food, as they two directly correlate with each other. As obesity is harmful to health, and a large percentage of the states is obese, it can be said that obesity is killing the nation, is doing drastic harm to the nation through health hazards.

When one is obese, one is much more prone to diseases and health issues such as diabetes and heart failure. These have the potential to kill or even hospitalize people. Because a large portion of the states is obese, and at risk to health issues in their lives, the nation, in a sense, is dying, because its people are dying. Because this is caused by fast food, it is obvious that fast food is indeed killing the nation.

Conclusion

CON only really provides one argument that proves anything, and that one argument is proving the wrong side. I have detailed an argument that proves my side of the case, that fast food is killing the states.

As a result of CON proving my side, and me having successfully proven my BOP, it is obvious that I have won thie debate.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
lmeyer

Con

By mistake I hit con, but I will argue for Con.
Argument
People have free will. It is not secret that fast food implies fat and greasy foods. They now state their nutritional content on websites and packaging.
No one is holding a gun to the consumers head to consume food at these restaurants.
Fast food restaurants are now offering many healthy alternatives in their menus at the same great affordable prices.

http://www.mcdonalds.com...

Conclusion
It is up to the consumer to make good healthy choices to ensure their health.
Vote Con
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

I would just like to point out, that firstly, CON drops my entire case and simply procures another argument.

Let's start with a refutation again.

It is not secret that fast food implies fat and greasy foods. They now state their nutritional content on websites and packaging.

The big problem with this is that many people cannot read and understand the nutritional facts. 5% sodium, what is that? Is that good or bad? 100mg of carbohydrates... ?

The average person would not look at the nutritional facts, and even if they do, it is even less likely that they would fully understand it and change their decision about eating the food. Therefore, the argument that nutritional facts on fast food is a reason that it is not killing the nation, is false.

No one is holding a gun to the consumers head to consume food at these restaurants. Fast food restaurants are now offering many healthy alternatives in their menus at the same great affordable prices.

That may be true, however CON deviates from the topic. The topic is whether or not fast food is killing the nation, and arguing that people are not forced to eat fast food does not prove that. It is true that people are not forced to eat fast food, however some people still choose to eat fast food, therefore, the threat of fast food still poses a huge risk, and is indeded killing the nation.

Furthermore, fast food restaurants offering healthier alternatives is not a valid point, as it does not prove the resolution. Although fast food chains offer healthier food, they still have fast food that is unhealthy, available to customers. People still eat the unhealthy fast food, although there are healthier options. Therefore, it is obvious, as I proved last round, that fast food is killing the nation.

Conclusion

CON drops all my arguments from last round. CON deviates from the topic.

Furthermore, you can't just ban fast food. http://www.greatist.com...#

There are literally millions of chains in the states, providing many jobs. Like it or not, there are always going to be fast food restaurants around for people to eat in.

As I proved that fast food does kill the nation, the fact that fast food chains will always be around, is a clear sign that the nation will grow to have more and more health issues.

Therefore, fast food is killing the nation.
Therefoer, vote PRO
Debate Round No. 2
lmeyer

Con

The nutritional content that is listed in foods is list for consumer to know and learn. It is not the fast foods chain's responsibility to educate their consumers. It is the consumers responsibility to learn what their eating. Therefore, Fast food Chains are providing information that is necessary, hence is it is the consumers choice of fast food that is killing the nation.
http://nerdfitness.com...

It is the consumer's lack of care in choice of fast food that is killing the nation. Ban on fast food is needed.

Vote Con
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

Again, CON does not contest my previous arguments or refutation.

Again let's start with a refutation.

This is CON's case.

The nutritional content that is listed in foods is list for consumer to know and learn. It is not the fast foods chain's responsibility to educate their consumers. It is the consumers responsibility to learn what their eating. Therefore, Fast food Chains are providing information that is necessary, hence is it is the consumers choice of fast food that is killing the nation.

Whether or not it is the consumer's choice, the end result is the same, which CON agrees, "fast food is killing the nation."

CON also says a ban on fast food is needed, but I pointed out last round, that that is not possible. I doubt CON even read my arguments.

Conclusion

-
dropped arguments/refutation
-concession that fast food is killing the nation
-did not read last round's arguments

Therefore, it is obvious that I have won this debate.
Vote PRO
Debate Round No. 3
lmeyer

Con

First of all I did read your post.

If you read my argument. It is the consumers choice in eating fast food in unhealthy ways.

Fast food chains have taken an approach to offer all different things on their menu, which some are healthy and at the same low cost.

As from the stand point it is not the responsibility of these chains to ensure that each consumer is maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

Vote Con
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

CON still has not touched the first argument I made about obesity from the first round.

Refutation

If you read my argument. It is the consumers choice in eating fast food in unhealthy ways.
Yes, I understand it is the consumer's choice to eat fast food. However, that only proves my earlier point that consumers are getting more and more obese and as a result is killing the nation.

Furthermore, consumer choice does not prove that fast food is not killing the nation.

Fast food chains have taken an approach to offer all different things on their menu, which some are healthy and at the same low cost.

I said this before, which remains unrefuted, fast food is still readily available even if healthier foods are added. Not all consumers will switch to the healthy foods and as a result, some consumers will still eat unhealthy. Obesity, killing the nation.

As from the stand point it is not the responsibility of these chains to ensure that each consumer is maintaining a healthy lifestyle.


I don't care, this does not prove that fast food is not killing the nation. Off topic.

Conclusion

CON leaves many points of mine unrefuted and deviates greatly off topic.
Debate Round No. 4
lmeyer

Con

I have responded to your argument that consumer do not know how to read content charts of nutrition.

Fast food is not killing the nation. It is consumer choice. The fast food industry markets there products to educe consumption as any other but yet again it is consumer choice. If there was a ban on fast food, consumers would still make unhealthy choice effecting their health. Therefore, it is not fast food that is killing the nation. It is consumers choice of consumption.

Fast food is not killing the nation.
Vote Con
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

Again, CON ignores the fundamental principles of my argument as well as ignores my first argument on obesity and health affects.

CON says, that because it is consumer choice, fast food is not killing the nation. Consider this.
In a hypothetical situation, let's say a fast food chain sells poison.

The consumer makes the choice to buy the poison and congest it. He dies. Therefore, regardless of choice, this poison still kills the person. Now multiply that on a nation wide scale. Then, we can truly see that fast food is killing the nation.

CON also talks about a ban on fast food. I thoroughly explained that a ban on fast food is not possible. Furthermore, CON says that if fast food is banned, consumers would still make unhealthy choices. However, I thoroughly explained that choice is not a deciding factor in whether or not fast food is killing the nation.

Regardless whose chocie it is, consumers still ingest fast food, thus getting health concerns and obesity rates. Therefore, fast food is killing the nation.

Therefore, it is obvious to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by pomare 5 years ago
pomare
this debate was very hard to defend by the con side, but the arguments were pretty bad anyway, no offense intended.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
sounds like you would be pro in this issue, not con
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
lmeyerHardcore.PwnographyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con screwed up and conceded in the opening argument. A poor debate resulted. con loses conduct for claiming Pro didn't read his arguments; Con doesn't know, and it's legitimate to ore an argument in favor of a counter argument, even though that's rarely a winnng strategy.
Vote Placed by Beachgirly 5 years ago
Beachgirly
lmeyerHardcore.PwnographyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted again
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
lmeyerHardcore.PwnographyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: unrefuted arguments and better grammar give those points to the Pro, also the "vote Con" on EVERY round cost the Con conduct. Sources were even though...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lmeyerHardcore.PwnographyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The obesity arguments and the health arguments stood, and con provided almost no argument. Basically an RFD is not needed, but I gave one. Also he had more sources, and she used a biased source to the max here: MacDonalds.com