The Instigator
KnowItAll
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
kayteecurt
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban Bill

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 4 votes the winner is...
KnowItAll
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,725 times Debate No: 16287
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

KnowItAll

Con

San Francisco is the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children. The same type of law is gaining momentum in New York.

I will be taking the position of con in this debate which will consist of 4 rounds. Round 1 is for acceptance of this debate. Round 2 is for opening statements and for arguments to be presented. Round 3 is to address arguments made in the previous round. Round 4 is for closing statements.

The definition of an unhealthy restaurant meal is is a meal that contains more than 600 calories, does not contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar.
kayteecurt

Pro

I accept this debate, for I am sure that this is the right thing to do. Sometimes the children think of the toy as something more important than the food itself, no matter how unhealthy. A good restaurant will earn back its toys by making the menu healthier. Then it will have the support of kids, parents, and lawmakers alike.
Debate Round No. 1
KnowItAll

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for her opening argument.

Sometimes the children think of the toy as something more important than the food itself, no matter how unhealthy.

Regardless of what a child thinks it's up to the parent to decide. When a television commercial airs and the child screams that he or she wants the next best toy, is it for the child to decide to make the purchase or is it the parent that makes the purchase?

What's next? Will government next tell restaurants that they must refuse to honor an obese persons order and suggest an alternative because they meal is high in fat?

I've never in my life seen an 8 years old, get into his car, drive to McDonald's, go inside and order a happy meal.

I now pass to my opponent.
kayteecurt

Pro

I like your views. First, did you know that one out of three toys given to a child is from a fast food restaurant? Sure, it's a cheap and easy way to give a child something to play with, but is it really how people should live? The children see toys on commercials, and automatically want them. You see, the toys are given to McDonald's and Burger King and all the other restaurants for advertising. But when the child sees the item advertising a new movie, they won't want to see the movie. They'll just want the toy. If it's an unhealthy restaurant, it doesn't deserve to give toys. A good restaurant deemed unhealthy will improve its menu instead of arguing.
Debate Round No. 2
KnowItAll

Con

"First, did you know that one out of three toys given to a child is from a fast food restaurant?
The above statement equates to 66% off all toys are not given to a child from fast food restaurants.

"Sure, it's a cheap and easy way to give a child something to play with, but is it really how people should live?"

There are much cheaper ways for a parent to purchase a toy for their child other than getting it with food at a restaurant. For example, a parent could simply walk into a dollar store and purchase a toy. With regard to how people should live, it's simply a matter of opinion. How we choose to live is within our rights, just as long as we don't break the law. The issue with this law is that the government is stepping in and taking choice away. Additionally, this sets a dangerous precedent. The government stepped in and created a law based on opinion. An opinion that restaurants who provide toys with "unhealthy" food are to blame for childhood obesity.

"But when the child sees the item advertising a new movie, they won't want to see the movie. They'll just want the toy."

The child may or may not want to see the movie or may want the toy because the child saw the movie and liked it.
Again, just because the child wants something doesn't mean the parent must make the purchase.

"A good restaurant deemed unhealthy will improve its menu instead of arguing."
Since it's apparent that McDonald's was the target of this law, I will use McDonald's menu to prove my point.[1]
When you go to McDonald's and purchase a Happy Meal, you have the option of replacing the French fries with apples
slices and can get a milk as a beverage. This total calorie intake for this meal is a little over 300 calories but still wouldn't pass the test as 35% of the fat intake comes from the nuggets. [2] Also, who has the right to deem any privately operated restaurant as unhealthy?

It seems that politicians don't have a problem with the toys in as much as they have a problem with fast food restaurants. Many politicians complain that fast food restaurants are plentiful in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods and the people who live in these neighborhoods opt for fast food because it's cheap and inexpensive. [2] So how does banning toys that comes with cheap, inexpensive food stop parents in these neighborhoods from buying the food and feeding it to their children as it's cheap and inexpensive? The answer is it doesn't. This law is simply a way for government to dictate what parents feed to their children as parents seems to be too dumb to make the decision on their own.

What's next, a law being passed that will prevent supermarkets from having a candy aisle because children will make their parents purchase candy? "Candy aisles in supermarkets are undermining the way parents raise their children and is contributing to childhood obesity." states the next politician. How about a law that states that toys can no longer be advertised on television?

I now pass the debate to my opponent.

SOURCES

[1]http://www.mcdonalds.com...
[2]http://www.csmonitor.com...
kayteecurt

Pro

It's really just a matter of parental responsibility. If children walk up to the candy isle and ask for a gigantic bag of sugary sweets, it should be the parent's responsibility to say no. Unhealthy restaurants disguise their fatty, sugary food with small delights for children. It's unhealthy for our children and it's unnecessary to trick them by giving toys with a very unhealthy meal. I do agree that parents have the ability to make a decision if they want to let their kids eat unhealthy meals, and the government should not take control here. But it isn't just the parents. The kids ask for it. A study at Yale proved that 40 of children between the ages of two and eleven ask to go to McDonald's every week. We don't want the children in our country to become obese and unhealthy. Toys lure them in to unhealthy restaurants. It is true that McDonald's offers apple fries, but it's only a way to lead the kids to REAL fries. Anyway, not many kids want to substitute a salty treat for apple slices. Also, the apples are served with sugary caramel, making it almost equally unhealthy. The main problem, though, is the parents. Examples:

"Maybe just this one time..."
"Ok, but this is all of your dinner. Alright?"
"Fine, but get the small fries..."

These are promises that don't usually stay true.

Sources:

http://sundial.csun.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
KnowItAll

Con

I like to thank my opponent for this debate.

The San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban is nothing more than politicians telling private business what they cannot do while yet again attempting to tell irresponsible parents how to raise they're children.

My opponent's stance corroborates my statements as her entire argument is based on "what kids want" while she dismisses the responsibility of the parents. Politicians claim that this law will force children and parents alike to make healthier eating choices yet the main reason while people who live in lower income areas purchase the "unhealthy" food to begin with is due to the price, not the toys that are provided with the meal. Banning toys with the food does not provide a viable deterrent.

At the end of the day, it is not children who make the purchase, it is the parent and government does not have a right to deem eating establishments as unhealthy. That right is reserved for the paying public. This law sets a dangerous precedent as government can simply decide that a private establishment is a danger to children's health and dictate how the establishment can market themselves. There is nothing to stop government from stating that Tony The Tiger makes kids want to eat Frosted Flakes so Tony The Tiger should no longer be allowed as Frosted Flakes are bad for children and leads to obesity.

I thank you all for reading this debate and kindly request that you vote for Con.
kayteecurt

Pro

Thank you for your comments, Con. I assure you that Happy Meal toys are more likely to draw kids' attention than Tony the Tiger. Also, dollar store items cost a dollar. If you buy a Happy Meal instead, you get a free toy with yummy food. The parents should be responsible for what children want, but it makes no difference to the fact that the children want it and ask for it often. Some parents are more likely to give in.

This bill was created to stop the skyrocketing childhood obesity rates. If these rates keep growing at the pace it is already at, the world will be filled with unhealthy people.
http://www.livestrong.com...
http://www.google.com...

Some scientists even believe that this could be the first generation where parents outlive their children. Obese children are likely to have hypertension, high cholesterol, type two diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.

Parents should be responsible for their children's eating habits, but some don't know the dangers. 96% of children recognize Ronald McDonald, second only to Santa Claus. Why shouldn't they? So many advertisements have been made featuring the mascot, it's hard to keep track.

I thank you for following this debate, and advise you to please vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
It's a rights issue. The thinking in San Francisco is that parents have a right to do drugs, but not a right to buy toys for their children. It's pathetic.
Posted by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
More like Depressing Meals.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Whaaat? They're going to force McDonalds not to gift toys with the Happy Meals, now? Give me a flipping break.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
I don't know if there are any people in their right mind that could argue for this.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MontyKarl91 6 years ago
MontyKarl91
KnowItAllkayteecurtTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this debate wasn't even close. Con used much stronger arguments and reliable sources to attack the Toy Ban bill. It seems Pro did not read all of her links, as one supports Con's claim that children would still want the healthy food. A fairly dominating performance.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
KnowItAllkayteecurtTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro couldn't show how San Fran has the right to choose what food is best for children rather than the parents.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
KnowItAllkayteecurtTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was more of an independent discussion with constant dropped points on each side. "politicians telling private business what they cannot do while yet again attempting to tell irresponsible parents how to raise they're children" this is a strong point, but it is not pushed hard, and ignored by Pro. But the same is said of points raised by Pro. 1 to Pro simply as Con had the BoP and did not sustain it.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
KnowItAllkayteecurtTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a rights issue. The thinking in San Francisco is that parents have a right to do drugs, but not a right to buy toys for their children. It's pathetic.