The Instigator
sdcharger
Pro (for)
Winning
66 Points
The Contender
Cindela
Con (against)
Losing
42 Points

McDonald's can be harmful.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 1/2/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,422 times Debate No: 1281
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (27)

 

sdcharger

Pro

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good (whenever you are reading this)

Thank you for accepting this debate.

My first point:

McDonald's kills animals for food. This in itself proves that McDonald's can be harmful because McDonald's is harmful to animals. No further argument is needed for this point.

My second point:

McDonald's is fattening. According to the McDonald's website, a cheeseburger alone has 6 grams of saturated fat. A ten-piece Chicken McNuggets has 1120 mg of sodium. And did you think those new McSkillet Burritos are any healthier, think again. 14 grams of saturated fat and 1470 milligrams of sodium. The nutrition facts speak for themselves.

My third point:

McDonald's is a fast food restaurant. Yes, they taste good, but they are not prepared well. Anything prepared quickly is not prepared well. The ingredients are not always fresh because they need to prepare the food in advance to serve the multitude of customers.

I await your acceptance of this challenge. Thank you.
Cindela

Con

Before I begin my argument, I just want to ask everyone who is voting in this debate to vote based upon the debater's arguments, and the quality of them, and not on the topic. Please do not vote for sdcharger just because he is debating on one side of a topic that many people like. Please vote based on the quality of our arguments, and if sdcharger wins this debate (which I hope not) please let it be because of the arguments he put forth. Thank You

First, I would like to define the topic so there is no confusion as to what we are talking about. McDonald's is a fast food chain of restaurants across the world that serve food like hamburgers and french fries. For more info, go to www.mcdonalds.com/ . Harmful, as defined by Merriam Webster, is: of a kind likely to be damaging:injurious.

Now to my rebuttals of sdcharger's previous arguments:
He said that McDonald's kills animals for food, and that act is harmful. That is a ridiculous argument! Any act can be harmful if you look at it a certain way. An example: using a computer uses electricity, coal is often used to generate electricity, and the pollution from burning coal is harmful to the ozone layer. Another example: we print newspapers on paper. Paper comes from trees, and chopping them down for paper is harmful to the tree. Do you see what I mean? Anything can be traced beck to something harmful, as long as you look far enough. But, in doing something that was the result of something harmful, we can often get harmless and very helpful resutls! Through McDonald's, we get the Ronald McDonald House Charities. RMHC create programs that help improve the health and well being of children. For more information about Ronald McDonald House Charities, go to www.rmhc.org/ My point here is that just because something may be the product of something harmful, that does not mean that everything that someone does is harmful. Just because McDonald's kills animals for food, that does not mean that McDonald's if harmful. That is like saying that NASA is bad because they are leaving junk is space. But without NASA, we would not know all that we know about space.

My opponent's second point: McDonald's is fattening. Yes, a cheeseburger has 6 grams of fat. But, it will only be harmful to you if you do not do anything afterwards. If you excersise the proper amount, a cheeseburger will not have any bad effects on your body or yourself. If you eat and do not excersise afterwards, you WILL gain weight, no matter what you eat!

My opponent's third point: McDonald's is a fast food restaurant. Yes, they taste good, but they are not prepared well. Anything prepared quickly is not prepared well. Wait. Is my opponent saying that just because food may be prepared quickly, it is not of a good quality??? That is like saying that becasue a chef cooks food quickly, he is a bad chef. What about the Iron Chef?? They are given a very short amount of time to create an amazing meal? Does that mean that their foods are horrible? Also, my opponent said that "The ingredients are not always fresh because they need to prepare the food in advance to serve the multitude of customers." How is this harmful? I would like to ask my opponent to clarify this.

Now to my arguement that McDonald's is not harmful.
Ronald McDonald House Charities. McDonald's directly gives support by paying the general and administrative costs of the RMHC global office. That means that almost all the money donated to RMHC goes to their programs to help childrens. This argument alone should win me this debate. My basic argument is basicaly that McDonald's giving RMHC support and help shows that McDonald's is not harmful. I will give this argument first, and save them for later. Thank you, and please do not vote based upon your opinion, only upon the arguments in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
sdcharger

Pro

Thank you for your reply.

First of all, I would like to define the word "can" as "to be able to".

Against my first point, you said that the idea of the slaughter of animals being harmful was ridiculous. You speculated that anything can be harmful if you look at it at a certain way. You agreed with me that McDonald's can be harmful, which is what we are debating about. Also, you said that even some harmful things end up "harmless and helpful". Please let me know what helpful things we gain from eating McDonald's. Is it the Happy Meal toys. Lovable, but not helpful.

Against my second point, you said that even though McDonald's can be fattening, you can exercise it away. Again, you have agreed that it can be harmful, as stated by the topic. We are not debating whether or not McDonald's will increase your waist line after exercising. We are debating whether or not McDonald's can, or is able to be, harmful, which you have agreed with.

Against my third point, you said that not everything that is prepared quickly is prepared poorly. Allow me to clarify. I meant that what a cook at McDonald's prepares over and over again (a burger to hungry customers) might be poorer quality than what a chef prepares in a fancy restaurant. Also you use the example of the Iron Chef. Yes, the Iron Chef prepares great food in a certain amount of time, but they only have to prepare it once, as opposed to the fry cooks at McDonald's.

Rebutting against your argument:

You said that McDonald's has a Ronald McDonald's House Charities. I did not say that McDonald's was a total destructive force with no intent of benevolence. I merely stated that McDonald's could be harmful.

I rest my case. Thank you again.
Cindela

Con

Thank you for your prompt reply.

You asked about good things that we gain from eating McDonald's? This topic is not whether the food is harmful, it is whether the company is harmful. I mentioned that in my first argument: McDonald's is a fast food chain of restaurants across the world that serve food like hamburgers and french fries.

>>Against my second point, you said that even though McDonald's can be fattening, you can exercise it away. Again, you have agreed that it can be harmful, as stated by the topic.
Again, this debate is not about whether the food is harmful. It is about whether the company is harmful.
No, I did not agree that eating a hamburger can be harmful. I agreed that a hamburger is fattening. One hamburger is not going to injure you for life. One hamburger is not going to cripple you, and therefore one hamburger is not harmful. If you decide to eat 5 hamburger's a day, then whose fault is it when you gain a few pounds? Yours. It would not be McDonald's fault that you want to eat 5 hamburgers a day and not do any excersice. It would not be McDonald's that is harmful, it is yourself being harmful to yourself. Also, this arguement is irrelevant to the debate. Read on to find out why.

>> We are debating whether or not McDonald's can, or is able to be, harmful, which you have agreed with.
Throught this debate, you have been debating around the thought that in this debate, McDonald's means the food it serves. However, I am not debating about the McDonald's food. I am debating about the McDonald's Corporation. You did not limit this debate to the food in the topic. Therefore, your second argument is null.

>>I meant that what a cook at McDonald's prepares over and over again (a burger to hungry customers) might be poorer quality than what a chef prepares in a fancy restaurant.
Just because the cook at McDonald's making things over and over again does not mean that the food is bad. Do you have any proof that this is so? If you do, I would very much like to see it in your next argument. How do you know that the chef in a fancy restaurant is not cooking food at a lower quality than the McDonald's chef?? This is just speculation.

>>You said that McDonald's has a Ronald McDonald's House Charities. I did not say that McDonald's was a total destructive force with no intent of benevolence. I merely stated that McDonald's could be harmful.
So you are agreeing with me when I say that McDonald's is not harmful.

Seeing as I have rebutted all of my opponents arguments that pertain to this debate, and since my opponent is agreeing with me on my point, I rest my case.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
sdcharger

Pro

Thank you for your reply.

First of all, I would like to make a complaint. You have openly defined the topic. However, as the contender, you are not allowed to define topics. If I, as the instigator, wish to define the topic, I will. If I don't, then the topic is left broad with no one being able to define any words. That is a rule of debate that you, as one on the Debate Team, should know. And please don't give me all this stuff about >mimic voice< "Oh! How do YOU know that I'm on the Debate Team? Huh? Are you a stalker?" Please...just stop. Your acting is horrible anyways.

>>>>You said that McDonald's has a Ronald McDonald's House Charities. I did not say that McDonald's was a total destructive force with no intent of benevolence. I merely stated that McDonald's could be harmful.
>>So you are agreeing with me when I say that McDonald's is not harmful.

From the sentences that are preceded by four ">"s, those are my words. The sentence that is preceded by two ">"s are my opponent's words. As you can see, there is no where in MY quote that states that I state the McDonald's is not harmful. I merely mentioned that it isn't pure evil. Anyways, the debate of the topic is MCDONALD'S CAN BE HARMFUL. You have often strayed from the topic even when I defined "can" as "to be able". You are disobeying the rules of debate.

I personally have an older friend who worked at McDonald's from 2003-2005. Disgusted by the quality of the kitchen, he instead applied for a job at a fancier restaurant in New York where I forget the name. He has told me that at a fancier restaurant, after reading your argument, one does not cook food over and over repeatedly. And even though at McDonald's there is the variety that you can add or take away, pickles, mustard, ketchup, cheese, onion, etc., it still is basically the same thing. He has also stated that the quality of food at McDonald's is greatly lower than that of the fancier restaurant. This is no longer speculation because of a personal account from someone who has worked on "both sides of the fence".

You state that "My opponent is agreeing with me on my point, I rest my case." The only reason why I agree with you, which I don't, is because you have taken my words, and twisted it in such a propagandist way that I end up saying what I don't say, which just so happens to fit your argument perfectly. I would thank you to stop using such despicable means of propaganda and participate in a clean, sanitized debate.

To recapitulate, the topic of the sentence of the debate is the "McDonald's [as a broad subject, including its divisions and food] can be harmful." Now, I ask for you to remember that "can" means "to be able" and seeing as McDonald's is able to be harmful in the case of unhealthful weight gain. Although one can lose the harmful fat with a large amount of exercise, you still are able to be harmed if you don't. There is the possibility that McDonald's has the ability to harm you if you don't exercise.

Next, animal slaughter. My opponent has stated that it depends on how you look at it. However, if you look at animal slaughter from the view of a cow, the cow will be harmed and then turned into a patty. Therefore, McDonald's can be harmful.

The following is an excerpt from the book: "Earth Voice" This excerpt is about the life of a young calf and his life from birth to a patty:

"Generally, when a cow gives birth to a male calf, he is immediately shipped to a [patty] factory and put in a stall so tiny that he cannot move except to collapse his legs into a sitting position. For his entire short life, he is tied by the neck to prevent him from almost all bodily movement, including licking himself. He is fed a diet deliberately lacking iron and roughage... Symptoms of diseases caused by the deficient diet and lack of exercise. Growth hormones may be administered to speed weight gain and he is kept in darkness except during feeding time. Four months later he is killed to create a "delicacy" called a patty."

As John Robbins, author of "Diet for a New America" so succintly puts it:

"The average cow [that will eventually become a lifeless, thin cylinder of meat] living on today's farm is bred, fed, medicated, inseminated, and manipulated to a single purpose, maximum meat production at minimum cost. They live with unnaturally swollen and sensitive udders...the females are kept almost constatly pregnant and her calves are taken from her almost immediately after birth. However, "contented" is the characteristic most meat companies describe the cows in their farms [I resent him not labeling them as factories of slaughter]. However, cows in most factories are fed tranquilizers to calm their frazzled nerves."

As you can see from this description, which comes from a book in the nonfiction section, mind you, cows are treated horribly, which in other words, are caused harm. I have proven to you in these two sources, that McDonald's [as the broad subject, which includes its food] who is a benefactor of these factories, can cause harm to cows.

Seeing as I have successfully defended my points and refuted all of my opponent's points, McDonald's can be harmful, and I have won this debate.

Thank you all...and God bless us [believers] all.
Cindela

Con

>>then the topic is left broad with no one being able to define any words.
I have been debating assuming that McDonald's is the company, not the food. You have been debating assuming that McDonald's is the food, not the company. If we can't debate with the same starting ideas, then how are we supposed to debate??? But this is beside the point.
>>And please don't give me all this stuff about >mimic voice< "Oh! How do YOU know that I'm on the Debate Team? Huh? Are you a stalker?"
Just saying, it is possible. And I resent the fact that you think my acting is horrible. :(
So far, the previous 2 rebuttals have had nothing to do with the actual debate of the topic, so let's get to it.
>>He has also stated that the quality of food at McDonald's is greatly lower than that of the fancier restaurant.
The quality of the food at each McDonald's differs for well, each McDonald's! No 2 McDonald's are going to have exactly the same quality of food. McDonald's can try to have a high quality, but there will always be some that will not be up to standard. If you want to pull in personal accounts, then I have personal accounts from my uncle who currently owns 3 McDonald's and in each one, the quality has surpassed the standards of quality that McDonald's gives them. If you want even more personal accounts, I have personally seen the standards for food in McDonald's. If you leave french fries out for more than 10 minutes, you have to throw them away. If you leave hash browns out for more than a few minutes, you have to throw them away. If you want even more personal accounts, my uncle (same one) once worked and owned a restaurant and he says that the quality in a McDonald's and the restaurant that he owned was about the same.
>>seeing as McDonald's is able to be harmful in the case of unhealthful weight gain.
You will only get unhealthful weight gain if you eat a lot of McDonald's and if you do, you only have yourself to blame. Is it McDonald's fault if you gain 50 pounds because you eat 3 Big Macs at every meal?? No. It is your own fault that you decide to do so. In this case, it would not be McDonald's being harmful, but you being harmful to yourself.
>>As you can see from this description, which comes from a book in the nonfiction section, mind you, cows are treated horribly, which in other words, are caused harm. I have proven to you in these two sources, that McDonald's [as the broad subject, which includes its food] who is a benefactor of these factories, can cause harm to cows.
You showed us excerpts from books showing treatment of cows. Nowhere in those excerpts did I see even one mention of McDonald's. For all we know, those cows could be supplying patties to Wendy's or Burger King. It did not say anything about McDonald's.

During this debate, I was the Contender of the debate. My opponent was the Instigator. My opponent was given the burden of proving that McDonald's can be harmful, and my job was to prove his arguments wrong. I have done so. I have refuted all of my opponent's points and because I was the contender, I do not have to prove anything.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vcheng 7 years ago
vcheng
con side was better, have to say
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
Uh...Yeah, McDonald's CAN be harmful.

Anything can be harmful.

The Coke-Cola polar bears can be harmful.
So can the big marshmallow man on Ghostbusters.
So can a ginger kid.
Really this topic doesn't make sense.
Posted by pune123 8 years ago
pune123
i am totally sick of the repitations of the views by both... but i found cindela to b quite good and impressive so i will vote for cone...
Posted by VinhVuong 9 years ago
VinhVuong
Alright, Since the "Debater" or the one in favor, does not one to debate me about this again, I will comment. First of all I am hunter, eating animals is ok, We are on top of the food chain idiots. As long as you hunt to eat it is ok. Back to the McDonald's is harmful, yes it is but you have a chose to eat it. This is a country of choice and if you want to eat it and make your body a blob then go ahead. You shouldnt blame them for making it harmful. I mean it is food. But you should be able to balance your health but some can't..losers. But McDonalds is not harmful
Posted by Loofa 9 years ago
Loofa
<McDonald's kills animals for food.>
So Does almost everyone else.
Posted by UN_diplomat 9 years ago
UN_diplomat
Referring back to Sagarous' comment about four days ago, none taken!
Posted by ryan.martin 9 years ago
ryan.martin
I happen to manage a McDonald's, and it is important to realise that McDonald's is often cited for negative feedback because it is the leading restaurant sales and customer wise. Their are many restaurants that kill animals and have fatty foods. Surely, if you eat McDonald's everyday in large amounts then you will probably not live forever. As far as the negative impact on the environment, these people are eating highly processed food, I.e.- fake. the impact on the environment per pound of food compared to other businesses is dramatically less. It is easy to draw a conclusion that they are harmful for the environment, because of the shear raw numbers as far as the number of cattle killed a year...but people need to eat, and they would have gotten their meat somewhere else.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Did you all see Fast Food Nation?

what a movie
Posted by undecided_voter 9 years ago
undecided_voter
I resent cindela's last few sentences.

sdcharger has actually proven that McDonald's CAN be harmful.

Cindela is merely taking advantage of the fact that many people don't read the whole thing and the last few sentences of the last argument are what most people read. Cindela is a very good propagandist. I applaud him for that, except next time, make sure that people can't tell that you're lying.
Posted by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
For padfo0t's argument, isn't the keyword...DAD?
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by MissPiggy 5 years ago
MissPiggy
sdchargerCindelaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was more convincing and I believe his side of this case.
Vote Placed by sdcharger 7 years ago
sdcharger
sdchargerCindelaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by jameshuh1234 8 years ago
jameshuh1234
sdchargerCindelaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
sdchargerCindelaTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
sdchargerCindelaTied
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 sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
sdchargerCindelaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
sdchargerCindelaTied
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 pune123 8 years ago
pune123
sdchargerCindelaTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
sdchargerCindelaTied
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 Jziggy 9 years ago
Jziggy
sdchargerCindelaTied
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