The Instigator
PilosopongKano
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JacobAnderson
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is it morally justifiable that Heart Attack Grill should be closed down?

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...
JacobAnderson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 409 times Debate No: 41115
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

PilosopongKano

Pro

People says this establishment should be spared from public ridicule because they have only one branch, Even if they have only one branch (Las Vegas, USA) this establishment should be closed down for coming out provocative menus like: Triple Bypass Burger that contains too much cholesterol that could trigger a heart attack! what more disturbing is OBESE people weighting more than 160 kg. will get it free!
JacobAnderson

Con

To start, I will offer my "rules."
- Morally justifiable is not strictly based on facts, so an argument based on opinions is okay.
- Because we are debating the morality of the institution, neither side will be allowed to bring up the legality of the institution.

Simple, very few rules.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a moral standpoint, is it not a person's choice on what they consume? I do not know much of anything about the Heart Attack Grill, but from what I've seen it is a bunch of waitresses dressed as nurses (Or are they really nurses?) giving the customer a fun experience while trying out the food.
But, I feel like you question the morality because of the food and the outcomes of the food itself. Well, again, are we allowed to tell people what they can and cannot eat? Morally, I see nothing wrong with allowing someone to know the risks and still consume the product.
Debate Round No. 1
PilosopongKano

Pro

PilosopongKano forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson

Con

All arguments withheld until opponent returns.
Debate Round No. 2
PilosopongKano

Pro

PilosopongKano forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson

Con

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PilosopongKano

Pro

PilosopongKano forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson

Con

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
PilosopongKano

Pro

PilosopongKano forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson

Con

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
PilosopongKanoJacobAndersonTied
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: Forfeits.