The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
evilkillerfiggin
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Fast food restaurants should have narrow doorways to stop the obese from getting in.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 8/7/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,004 times Debate No: 4935
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (13)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Let's take the following as given, shall we?

1 - Being obese is unhealthy.
2 - The items on the menus of fast food restaurants are generally high in calories.
3 – Most obese people are overweight because they are greedy and lazy.
3 - Watching the obese scoff down their grub like pigs with their snouts in the trough is unpleasant and puts normal people off their meals.

I have deliberately limited the parameter of this debate to fast food restaurants as I understand that obese people still need to eat something, even if they are slimming, and may wish to visit a normal restaurant and order a green salad or a bowl of cabbage soup - which is fine (although if they choose to order some massive great pile of fatty food instead, they should be made to consume their meal behind a screen in order not to offend their fellow diners).

If you go into a bar or pub and you are already drunk, the landlord has a moral and, indeed, legal duty to refuse you service. This is good for you because it is unhealthy to drink to excess and also good for the customers because drunkards are usually very unpleasant people to be around.

However, when the bar tender refuses a drunk more alcohol, an argument normally ensues. Similarly, if an obese walked into a fried chicken restaurant and ordered a large bucket of chicken and a super-sized portion of fries just for themselves and the server said: "I'm terribly sorry, sir, but I think you've had too much already. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave", the obese might start an argument as well.

However, this problem can be solved at a stroke – make fast food restaurants have narrow doors to prevent grossly overweight people getting in in the first place.

I look forward to reading my opponent's reply (GSOH required for this one b/t/w!)
evilkillerfiggin

Con

I have to say that Mr Eggleston's suggestion is an unwise one - although undoubtedly he had the best of intentions, he has not thought through to the consequences of such legislation.

There are some immediate problems with the implementation:

* We can expect to see an increase in the number of roaming fat people, seeking places to feed. This is unsightly and undesirable. In addition, congregations of the obese on the streets may make it difficult for pedestrians to navigate.

* There is an unfair discrimination against the legitimately large: Sumo wrestlers, pregnant Siamese twins and people with excessive luggage will all be unjustly inconvenienced.

* There is the danger that an overoptimistic obese person might carry on regardless and get himself stuck halfway in the door, thus depriving slimmer patrons of their meal.

* There is danger that they might simply roll through the walls instead.

However, I have some deeper concerns about the marginalisation of the obese. Cutting off such a large majority of the population from its favorite food source is going to have repercussions. The last thing the country needs is waddling, sweating rioters taking to the streets - people and small public monuments would undoubtedly be harmed, and the larder creatures glancing off buildings could cause structural damage.

There are undoubtedly laws that need to be put in place restricting the freedoms of the fat - I myself am in favour of banning obese women from the wearing of fashionable clothes intended for skinny models. However, such laws must be introduced slowly, to allow cultural acceptance to develop. I think this particular one is ahead of its time.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Thanks for taking this debate, Mr. Killerfiggin, or may I just call you Evil?

In his response my opponent wrote: "We can expect to see an increase in the number of roaming fat people, seeking places to feed. This is unsightly and undesirable. In addition, congregations of the obese on the streets may make it difficult for pedestrians to navigate."

How true. How very, very true! However, this is a problem I have already addressed in a previous debate:

http://www.debate.org...

As you can see, my proposal to empower law-enforcement officers to bludgeon to the ground any obese people that obstruct the pavement received popular support and this policy should be adopted in conjunction with the reduction in the width of the entrances to purveyors of junk food.

My opponent continued: "There is an unfair discrimination against the legitimately large: Sumo wrestlers, pregnant Siamese twins and people with excessive luggage will all be unjustly inconvenienced."

This is a good point and something that, by coincidence, I thought of myself down the pub at lunchtime - well the sumo wrestlers and luggage anyway, I admit the pregnant Siamese twins failed to occur to me!

But over a pint, I thought it through. All these people could be allowed in through the service entrance round the back by the bins. Them, as well as people in wheelchairs (although you'd have to be careful with them because some obese people might hijack a wheelchair and pretend to be disabled and try to sneak in that way.)

My opponent's next objection was: "There is the danger that an overoptimistic obese person might carry on regardless and get himself stuck halfway in the door, thus depriving slimmer patrons of their meal."

That's easy solved. The staff could pour cooking oil from the fryer over them and prise them out that way, and if that doesn't work, they could all charge at them with a huge battering ram (which all fast food joints would be required by law to keep for that purpose.)

Then my opponent wrote: "There is danger that they might simply roll through the walls instead." And went on to speculate that morbidly fat people would take to the streets and riot.

I doubt this would happen. We have already established that the obese are not only greedy but lazy as well. I mean, when did you last see a morbidly fat person use the stairs instead of the lift or walk instead of drive? No, even if they had greed as the motivation, they wouldn't have the energy or stamina to see it through.

I'm not sure my opponent is right to when he says this proposal is ahead of time, I think the main political parties have been considering making this official manifesto policy for some time, it's just there is a powerful fat lobby in Parliament, think the Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP.

http://www.cuppatea.org...

For those who are unfamiliar with British politicians, Ann Widdecombe is the one on the right.

I look forward to reading my opponent's response.
evilkillerfiggin

Con

Sumo wrestlers are elevated to near godlike status for what they do - they are used to being treated with the utmost respect. They're also really, really big and if you attempted to explain to them that they had to walk around to some lowly service entrance, they probably could eat you instead.

In fact, and as you have already noted, the very existence of another entrance defeats the point, as an enterprising fat person could, with very little effort, simply walk around and find it. He is unlikely to hike all the way to another restaurant when the distance to the door by the bins is far shorter (and the skip might offer the possibility of free hor d'eourves for the less discerning fatman.)

Furthermore, there are problems in your solution to the problem of fat men getting stuck in the doors:

Chains like McDonald's have recently spent millions of pounds in an attempt to change their reputation away from cheap, trashy fast food stereotypes towards a more healthy, fresh and organic image. Imagine their horror, should they be informed that it will now be necessary, twice a week or more, to slosh chicken fat over their doorway by the bucketful.

There is the issue of marketing: how many people will choose a restaurant that has grease all over the floor?

There is the issue of legality: when the next patron slips on this grease and ends up in hospital, who is culpable? The fat man or the restaurant?

There is also an inherent danger to the situation. Picture the scenario - a fat man stands helplessly squashed into the doorframe. Behind him are three or four of his wheezing fat friends, standing in queue and waiting to get in.

Our first fatty is then popped out by the battering ram (pun intended?) He of course travels straight backwards, transferring his considerable momentum to the man directly behind him. In a sequence similar to Newton's Cradle, this momentum is transfered down the queue, one fat man at a time, until the man at the end is sent hurtling backwards like a very blubbery cannonball. No one wants to walk down a street where such obese projectiles are liable to appear at random.

My opponent scoffs at the notion of the obese taking to the streets in protest, but I urge him to think more carefully.

I believe there was talk some time ago in some journals of the discovery that the consumption of greasy food acts like an addiction - people who lived off a diet of fast food and then were made to change to salads went through stages of craving and withdrawal. The conclusion was, the more we eat fast food, the more we want fast food, and the more we eat fruit instead, the more we find we like eating fruit instead.

So definitely yes - fat people under the spell of a greasy addiction, when faced with the prospect of being cut off from the substance of that addiction, most certainly will be moved to revolt.

Laziness is not a prohibitive factor - consider: we have already, by dint of the situation, eliminated those tubbies too lazy to leave their houses. Yes, we are dealing with the kind of people who will avoid walking if at all possible, but they are nevertheless the kind of people who will do so if they absolutely feel compelled - for example, if they are hungry and there's a McDonald's nearby.

We can expect to see the ravenous obese chomping their way across the streets - pickets in one hand, burgers in the other, some halfheartedly groaning attempts at slogans, some menacing passers-by with their unpleasant smell, the more aggressive of them barging over telephone boxes and sitting on policemen.

Yes, this is the future that my opponent's suggested actions will bring us to, and it is to avert this fate that I urge all those reading to vote with me against the proposal.
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by evilkillerfiggin 9 years ago
evilkillerfiggin
Cheers, man, I'll hold you to that.

And you're right - the chubby chasers are being awfully nice about all this...

Peace, all.
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thanks, Evil, for posting such hilarious replies! You cheered me up a lot. That Newton's Cradle image will live with me forever!

I'm dissappointed, howoever, that we didn't manage to offend more people. I was hoping for a few more pro-obese comments from outraged debaters who didn't get the joke!

Anyway, cheers mate, the next time I'm in Canterbury I'll buy you a pint!
Posted by flower 9 years ago
flower
Very insulting debate and absolutely unnecessary. And no I am not obese myself. It would do you both good if you looked into the real reasons for most obese people.
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
This sort of otherization is the very reason for as to why our society is a wreck. This sort of mindset is consistent with most racist.

This is one of the most repulsive and concretely unfavorable debates that I have seen on this site thus far.

I would be more than happy to be involved in a debate with either of you guys over this issue. Please feel free to challenge me.

- Protagoras of Abdera
Posted by evilkillerfiggin 9 years ago
evilkillerfiggin
Dude... you've kind of missed the point.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
I'm voting PRO because he made slightly less ridiculous arguments and was slightly less insulting.
Posted by evilkillerfiggin 9 years ago
evilkillerfiggin
Sorry - finished a bit abruptly there.

Cheers, Mr Egglestone. It's nice, every now and again, to take a break from those tedious issues of politics and religion and debate about something truly significant to society.

So thank you for a fine debate and I wish you the best of luck with your continuing campaign against fat people.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
I just love how both PRO and CON are treating obese people like "other things" that aren't human. In particular, I laughed very loudly at CON's R1. This is hilarious. I will be watching this debate.
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
If that Ann Widdecombe link doesn't work try this one:

http://www.political.co.uk...
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 8 years ago
LandonWalsh
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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 apathy77 9 years ago
apathy77
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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 brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Josh 9 years ago
Josh
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by WarMonger 9 years ago
WarMonger
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Katie01 9 years ago
Katie01
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
brian_egglestonevilkillerfigginTied
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:30