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

Restaurants should implement an anti-obesity code of conduct

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 780 times Debate No: 36894
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Obesity is the biggest health problem facing society today and clearly restaurants that serve obese customers unhealthy food and drink should behave more responsibly.

Whilst I realise that a ban on serving obese customers would be unworkable and possibly a breach of human rights, a voluntary code of conduct should be introduced whereby obese customers are discouraged from going to restaurants to gorge on fattening food and drink.

Here are some recommendations for the code of conduct:

* Restaurants should fit narrower doorways to stop the most obese customers from getting in;

* Restaurants should install weight sensitive welcome mats that make "Oink! Oink! Squeal! Squeal!" noises when an obese customer enters;

* Restaurants should introduce chairs designed to collapse under the heavy weight of grossly overweight customers;

* Restaurants to serve orders of extra large portions of fatty food in animal troughs, and orders of extra large drinks in buckets.

Whilst there would be no obligation to implement these measures the national governing body of the catering industry could require these measures to be introduced as a condition of membership and restaurant reviewers could name and shame those restaurants that continue to behave irresponsibly by ignoring the code of conduct.

Thank you.


First, restaurant code of conduct would be unconstitutional, rob people of their freedom of choice, and bolster and further the nanny state mentality that is sweeping the nation.

Second, obesity is mostly caused by the fact that most Americans eat 75% of their meals at fast food joints, and the food offered there is full of non nutritional calories. Non nutritional calories cause the body to seek the nutrients it needs, and so more fast food is ingested. Hence, the 'eater' as we shall call him/her, eats more and more without being satisfied.

The proliferation of fast food restaurants since the early 60s is staggering. In the early 60s, we ate most of our meals at home, cooked by 'Mom'. Fast food was a treat every couple of weeks. We ate healthy meals with salads, meat, potatoes and vegetables and we were healthy. Combined with Gym class, we led healthy lives and so had very few incidents of obesity, and none to the extent of blubberation seen today.

But with the wide spread and super dense population of these places, eating habits slowly changed to the point that we are seeing obesity spiral, reaching levels unheard of until these days. People today who are considered mildly overweight would have been seen as grossly overweight. We had maybe 2 of these fatties per class and the rest of us were of normal weight. Today in some places it's become a bona fide disability. Supermarkets are putting out motorized carts for these tremendous behemoths in places like Florida. They roll down the isles scooping up any and every sweet or otherwise fattening foods they can find. And think they're doing a good thing if they have sugar free and/or fat free foods. Do you know what they put in these foods in place of sugar? Fat? It is not nutritious and in a lot of cases can be very damaging. And, since the body has a natural craving for sugar and fat,it'll just get those things elsewhere.

And the food clubs. Nutrisystem to name one. We had none of those back then, and none of the exercise gimmicks so prevalent in infomercials of today.

Ok. So we have a vast increase in fast food consumption. A vast increase in fast food locations. We have before unheard of levels of obesity, both in the number of obese people as well as the extent of the obesity. Likewise, we have a growing 'food system' industry, a growing exercise industry, a growing diet industry, a growing miracle system, available and pushed on DVDs. And people are fatter than ever. Why would they want you to get thin? That would empty their client lists!

And you want to create a 'code of conduct' for restaurants. Have government reach its slimy sticky hands further into the business of private citizens. It seems to me that you would advocate a socialist, communist, fascist or another kind of supreme controlling government that tells you what to do in any foreseeable event. Do you not value the right of free personal choice?

What you are advocating is oppressive, controlling, sheeple producing lunacy, the kind that is abounding under people like George Soros (Obama's puppeteer and benefactor) and other billionaires that seek to rule the world with the New World Order. One government herding around a world of drones that do their bidding.

No thanks, buddy.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Peedeeboi for accepting this debate and also for his insightful analysis of the causes and implications of obesity in America which I found very interesting. I think we agree that obesity is a huge problem.

That's why the issue must be addressed and a voluntary code of conduct for restaurants could go a long way to reduce the prevalence of obesity in society.

Let me be clear, however, there was never any suggestion of government involvement and the code of conduct would not interfere with anybody's freedom of choice: obese customers willing to be humiliated in return for the pleasure of shovelling fatty food down their bloated necks in wholesale quantities will still be free to dine in restaurants that have adopted the code of conduct, provided they aren't too fat to fit through the door, of course!

Thank you.


What you suggest would not help the obese. It would simply embarrass a now huge (no pun intended) percentage of the public. They would just avoid the restaurants that had such a policy.

Nobody likes being singled out; nobody likes to be publicly embarrassed, and nobody would comply. Not the restaurant owners; they would lose business in an industry where only 5% of the businesses that open stay open. Not the customers; who wants to dine at a place that minds their business for them, No one wants to dine at a place that embarrasses them. And no one wants to be told what to do in a country where (at least for now) one has the freedom of choice to do what he wants with his/her body.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Singling out individuals for the life choices they make is wrong, which Con adequately demonstrated. I honestly don't even think Pro put forth a serious attempt to win this one.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 4 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Guess ill give the points to the only person who put a serious post.