The Instigator
daartoe
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PM1066
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Fast food restaurants should not sell to under 15 persons

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 1 vote the winner is...
PM1066
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 72563
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

daartoe

Pro

Fast food restaurants are in eventuality causing a lot of health problems for the country and skyrocketing the national medical bill.
Fast food - food prepared quickly, with little regard to nutritive quality.
sell - to advertise and cater for, to transact with monetarily

This is not my first round and the opponent may simply state the understanding of the motion so that we debate three rounds fairly.
PM1066

Con

I accept the challenge and understand the motion that fast food resteraunts should not sell food to individuals under 15.
Debate Round No. 1
daartoe

Pro

daartoe forfeited this round.
PM1066

Con

The Pro has not shown a direct causality between fast food & specific health problems they are supposed to cause. Further, the definition of fast food would exclude the majority of restaurants such as McDonald's, which offer a growing selection of healthy food. And, if the food is unhealthy why set an arbitrary limit at the age of 14? Finally who enforces this? Should we pass a law? I contend parents are responsible for their minor children, and let market forces drive change as they have.
Debate Round No. 2
daartoe

Pro

daartoe forfeited this round.
PM1066

Con

My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds; this is no longer a tenable debate on their part. Request immediate forfeiture of remaining round to move to the voting stage.
Debate Round No. 3
daartoe

Pro

daartoe forfeited this round.
PM1066

Con

Pro has forfeited three rounds with no explanation. Very poor form.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by PM1066 1 year ago
PM1066
To my opponent: Are we doing this or what? I'd prefer to debate, as that is the point here, but also do not want to waste my time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ewolf 1 year ago
ewolf
daartoePM1066Tied
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: The Pro crafted what could have been an interesting debate. I may have agreed with the Pro before the debate had the Pro not forfeited every round - this is the rationale behind me not giving the Pro points for anything. It is not fair to start a debate and then walk away from it. It was hard to agree with the Pro after the debate given that there was no response from the Pro. Additionally, forfeiture is not good conduct. Spelling and Grammar is irrelevant because of the forfeiture. By forfeiting the debate, the CON had a convincing argument - he was responsive. Pro did not provide any sources.