The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Fast food should stay at hospitals

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 934 times Debate No: 75267
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The fast food should stay at most hospitals because they provide a huge amount of money to help modernize the hospitals


As the person making the claim, Pro assumes the burden of proof.

Pro's argument is that fast food should be served at hospitals because they provide the hospital with additional revenue.

If the hospital sold illicit drugs they would also be provided with additional revenue.

If the hospital skimped on medicinal supplies it would lower their costs, providing them with additional revenue.

If the hospital simply charged patients more the same procedures, that would provide them with additional revenue.

As you can see, additional revenue can be achieved in numerous ways. Not all of them are good. Providing fast food at a hospital is not a good way to raise revenue simply because it'll increase healthcare costs in the long run. If we increase healthcare costs, money that could've been spent in other areas (research, innovation, planning) is now used to treat people with health problems

It may raise revenue in the short run, but health conditions that are caused by unhealthy foods (such as fast food) are a greater cost burden on our healthcare system. Fast food contributes to diabetes, obesity, heart problems, vitamin deficiencies, and a myriad of other health related issues. If "raising revenue" is the only goal, there are other ways to achieve this without introducing greater costs in the long run. Serving fast food at hospitals is an option that introduces greater costs in the long run due to the health-related problems that fast food causes. I don't have any burden of proof in this debate so if I show that my opponent's claim is not worth accepting, I will win on that basis alone without providing a counter-plan.
Debate Round No. 1


If the patient has a serious illness, they should not be leaving their ward for health reasons.

Therefore, the only people using it would be the patients with injuries and the families of patients.

Patients with leg injuries would find themselves restricted to a wheelchair or crutches, and patients with arm injuries would find themselves restricted with what they can eat.

Therefore the only people who would eat there commonly are the families of those who are at the hospital, and in most common scenarios, the families would only be dropping in to see the patient and stay with the patient for a short time, meaning that they would only stay for one meal, and if not, they would probably not chose the same restaurant to eat at twice.

If this was a children's hospital, the parent staying with the child would be most likely sensible enough to not eat at a fast food restaurant too much.


Extend my arguments from the previous round.

If immobile patients are being fed fast food, this accelerates their risk of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, etc,. This would only burden the healthcare system with greater costs in the long run in order to treat those conditions.

Further, "sensible enough not to eat as a fast food restaurant too much" stands in diametric opposition to your resolution that fast food should stay at hospitals.
Debate Round No. 2


randomperson0310 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.