Fast food should be illegal.
Debate Rounds (3)
As the Con it will be my task to prove that Fast food should not become illegal.
My opening statement:
At the turn of the century when industrialism and agriculture was booming, the population in American and all over the world rapidly grew due to man-kinds new capabilities. An issue resulted from such rapid population growth; How to feed them all? This resulted in the creation of food which was more transportable, faster to make, cheaper to make, easier to access, and delicious. By 1912, the first fast food restaurant, the "Automat", was opened. 40 years later, The first "McDonald's" was opened. The fast food business grew from there.
Now in the modern world, new problems face us. Bad economy, large migrating populations flowing in and out of major countries like America looking for work or to settle down. Jobs are scarce, and money is hard to come by for many families. One of the few things that sustains many impoverished families are fast food restaurants. To proclaim fast food illegal would be to destroy an enormous chuck of the economy, place many families without food and some without money to pay bills with. This cannot become a reality.
A. What is the industry worth?
-  "Here"s the report"s headline number: $4.2 billion, which is how much the industry spent marketing its wares in 2010.
To put that amount in perspective, consider the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion..." "...Its annual budget? $6.5 million, according to The New York Times reporter Michael Moss.
So $4.2 billion vs. $6.5 million..."
-Although it is obvious the challenges that face those who are trying to promote healthy eating habits, there is no denying the true size of the fast food industry.
B. What makes this industry so strong?
- "The fast food industry hires around 3.5 million workers"
-There is no denying that most employees of your local McDonald's or Burger King are young people looking for their first jobs or adults seeking out ways to make ends meet under a rough economy. With this being said, let us picture a world where fast food is illegal, thus leaving every fast food restaurant out of business. Without question, 2 million of those workers now have no clue where to find another job. Most are unqualified to work in many places, and 99% of the time, jobs requiring no qualification are already taken. Now of these 2 million workers, half if not a 3rd of which have a family, are looking for smaller homes, applying for governmental food-stamps, spending time selling items for small cash while they should be looking for a job. These are simply the workers maintaining the restaurants! The other 1.5 million who worked in a factory are having some luck as they are mostly qualified to operate equipment still cant find jobs which require their skill set are facing the same problems as the other 2 million. To top this all off, the farmers which provided chickens and vegetables are now seeking food corporations to sell their products to with no luck, as all the other food industries are content with their suppliers and have little or no need for more. In conclusion, the illegalization of Fast food puts millions of people out of work and collapses an enormous portion of our economy.
C. Fast food doesn't cause death, people cause death.
-My opponents argument seem to focus around the health problems which the consumption of large portions of fast food creates. However, he goes on to state that this is only the case if the individual consumes lots of fast food. I would like to answer this argument simply by stating that the individual has the freedom to choose how much fast food he or she eats, where they receive it from, where they eat it and when they eat it. Because fast food is not mandatory for all citizens to eat it and they have the option to eat it in general, how can legislation deem it illegal? Of course there are some foods that are illegal and fatal if consumed in large amounts because they are not FDA approved and can cause serious health problems like cardiac arrest. However, these are not the foods of discussion, and the ones on discussion are handled by the individual.
In conclusion, The fast food industry should not be made illegal because of the portion of the economy it would collapse, individuals it would put out of work for months and because the common person has the right to choose how much of certain foods they are allowed to consume and are warned of there effects in every day life. The Con should win immediately for completing the task at hand to prove that fast food should not be made illegal. Thank you.
There is no denying that these foods have many side effects to consuming in large amounts. However, simply because there are harmful side effects does not give legislation the right to declare it illegal. A perfect example of this are cigarettes. They have very harmful, causing diseases like lung cancer. However they are not made illegal because the package they come in warns the user of such harmful side effects. Because the user has the choice to both not par-take in the use of the product and because the product does not pose a threat to those around the consumer like meth or heroine would or... bath salts.
In conclusion the Con should win for already providing the reasons fast food cannot be illegalized and that the Pro contested none of this. Therefore The con wins. Thank you.
mohammed417 forfeited this round.
-A. The industry is to vast to simply ban.
-B. The banning of the industry puts millions out of work.
-C. Individuals have the freedom to eat what they please.
In conclusion, the Con should win for proving why fast food should not be made illegal, for performing with better conduct, more convincing arguments and for responding to every round. Please vote for the Con, Donjaundebater1212. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RedDebater 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: While I do agree full-heartedly that fast food should be illegal, this is a vote concerning the debate, and that quite easily goes to Con. He presented logical and backed-up arguments compared to Pro's repetitive and unsourced claims.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.