The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

One Ought Not Eat and Walk in Public

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,283 times Debate No: 34672
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

First Round for acceptance only.
5,000 character limit.

-- Definitions --

eat and walk: the act of eating food while simultaneously walking

public: any space you can encounter people which is not designated for eating purposes

E.g. Eating a hamburger while walking to your car.

No semantics
No trolling.

bladerunner060

Con

I accept this debate in which I will be arguing against the motion that "One should not eat and walk in public".
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Pro

-- Utilitarian Argument --

The main purpose of this debate is to showcase my interesting and unique argument based on utilitarianism against eating and walking. The argument is as follows...

1. Walking and eating in public decreases utility
2. Decreasing utility is wrong
Therefore, eating and walking in public is wrong.

Eating and walking in public decreases utility in the way that people get hungry on a regular basis. If you're in public odds are you will pass someone who is hungry or on the verge of being hungry. Sensory interaction with your food will then remind them of, pique or enhance their hunger. The feeling of hunger decreases utility in people. In public there's a chance of decreasing the utility of multiple people. Therefore, you've decreased utility which is wrong.

-- Safety, Waste and Efficiency --

Walking and eating in public can be unsafe. People can divert their eyes from what they're doing and potentially run into people, step into traffic, run into an object etc. It can also cause waste. If you're walking with a sandwich or an ice cream cone or something, walking can cause items to slip and fall out of or off of it thus wasting valuable food. You can spill on your shirt and have no way to fix it because you're on the move. Also, its inefficient. Instead of storing the energy as you relax, you're expending energy while trying to take in energy. This is not working at optimal efficiency and therefore should not be done.

Now this isn't a troll debate persay, but these are the types of arguments I will be using. Again, I just wanted to showcase my utilitarian argument and see how it stacks up.

Thanks.
bladerunner060

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his response. I'll take each of his arguments in turn, then make my round-closing remarks.

- Utilitarian Argument --
1. Walking and eating in public decreases utility
2. Decreasing utility is wrong
Therefore, eating and walking in public is wrong.
Eating and walking in public decreases utility in the way that people get hungry on a regular basis. If you're in public odds are you will pass someone who is hungry or on the verge of being hungry. Sensory interaction with your food will then remind them of, pique or enhance their hunger. The feeling of hunger decreases utility in people. In public there's a chance of decreasing the utility of multiple people. Therefore, you've decreased utility which is wrong.

Response:

There are several flaws with my opponent's utilitarian argument. He asserts without warrant that "The feeling of hunger decreases utility in people". I disagree. We all have to eat. Some of us several times a day! If someone is already sated, seeing/smelling food is unlikely to make them hungry. If they are already hungry, or are on the verge of hunger, then it may make them hungry.

But they were going to get hungry soon anyway, in that case!

There is no net change; so what if they're hungry slightly sooner? There's nothing stopping the hungry person from eating food of their own. In contrast, my opponent's argument forces a decrease in utility for the original hungry person. Unlike the person walking with food, who may merely remind someone that they're hungry, my opponent advocates that people be kept hungry, which is "wrong" by his own argument, as he has stated that the feeling of hunger decreases utility in people, and that decreasing utility is wrong. Walking by a pizza deliveryman can remind of hunger, too, but by Pro's case, the hungry person must remain with lower utility, even if they could fix it immediately.

Further, my opponent needs to recognize that, in regards to utility, one must look at the overall picture. You can't focus on one negative aspect, and ignore the positive utility.

When someone is hungry, they want to eat. His argument ignores circumstances in which people have no choice but to eat in public. Appointments that must be kept, or jobs which prevent one from a traditional "sit in one place and eat" meal.



-- Safety, Waste and Efficiency --
Walking and eating in public can be unsafe. People can divert their eyes from what they're doing and potentially run into people, step into traffic, run into an object etc.
That something can happen does not mean it will. If my opponent is arguing for paying attention while walking, I'm all for it. But eating does not inherently mean that one ceases to concern oneself with safety.
It can also cause waste. If you're walking with a sandwich or an ice cream cone or something, walking can cause items to slip and fall out of or off of it thus wasting valuable food.

You can spill on your shirt and have no way to fix it because you're on the move.

These are "can" arguments, not "will definitely" ones. I'm against wasting food, and against littering (not, per se, noted by my opponent, but certainly following the line of the argument). But being against these things does not necessitate being against eating in public.

Places designed for eating do not have washing machines. They have napkins and paper towels and bathrooms. Many places have paper towels and bathrooms, and napkins are unnecessary to accomplish the same level of "fix" if paper towels are present. There is no less likelihood of being able to "fix" a spill if one is on the move. In point of fact, there are occasions when being on the move might help with the stain; if one is headed home, one is that much closer to a washing machine and stain-fighting tools. The "setting" of a stain can be time-dependent.


Also, its inefficient. Instead of storing the energy as you relax, you're expending energy while trying to take in energy. This is not working at optimal efficiency and therefore should not be done.


This is faulty. Presumably, when someone is going somewhere in public, that's a place they'd go whether or not they ate while on the way. By my opponent's argument, they would have to sit in the place designed for eating purposes then go where they're headed. Even sitting expends some energy, thus increasing the net amount of energy required for the two tasks of eating and going to a destination. It also increases the net amount of time required to accomplish the tasks of the day. It is considerably more efficient to obtain food, then continue on one's business.

------------------------------------

Eating in a place designated or designed for eating is pleasant. Preferring to eat in such a place is a perfectly legitimate choice, despite its relative inefficiency. However, my opponent has failed to establish any reasons why one should not take the more efficient and sometimes necessary course of eating in public.

I look forward to Pro's next round!
Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I concede.

I realize my points are faulty and concede them to my opponent.

I wanted to try out some creativea rguments for something interesting and I have clearly failed.

Thank you.
bladerunner060

Con

I accept my opponent's concession. This was a fun diversion, and an enjoyable exercise!
Debate Round No. 3
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I honestly couldn't find anything that would sound decent for a debate, my arguments clearly just fell flat.

I apologize if this was a waste of time.

Thanks again.
bladerunner060

Con

This was a great debate for me since I'm all out of it. Serious enough that I had to use my poor Vicodin'd brain, but not one where I had to research and junk. Not at all a waste of time!

Thanks again to my opponent for being a classy character.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Nah, you deserve a win. I conceded.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
If this winds up a tie, I won't be heartbroken.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
No worries :D
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
In my defense for any typos or formatting errors, my mouth hurts like nobody's business; just had a bunch of dental work. Suffice to say: OW, and STILL OW a day later.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Lol
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Whoops, typo. Thanks for that.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
No schematics?

Does that mean I can't post my blueprints?
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
If that comment is sarcasm it is not appreciated.
Posted by effimero89 3 years ago
effimero89
Thanks for the definitions, I was pretty lost there for a minute.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
I mean, I don't want it to be a troll debate no. However, arguments that aren't completely 100% serious will be accepted if presented professionally.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
ConservativePoliticobladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: honorable forfeit
Vote Placed by Travniki 3 years ago
Travniki
ConservativePoliticobladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Honorable concession.