The Instigator
TheKingDebater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Debestdebater20
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should McDonalds be banned?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 604 times Debate No: 88691
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

TheKingDebater

Con

Hello everyone on Debate.org, for this Debate we will be talking about if McDonalds should be banned or not. I (TheKingDebater) am the con who will be talking against the motion and the opponent will be talking for the motion. For the next 3 rounds, I will be talking about my main points against this topic,a rebuttal against my opponent and end I will include a finishing statement. The first round is only for the opening argument so please don't start with your main points. I am looking forward to a good debate and I wish the best of luck to my opponent. Now the opponent can start their introduction.
Debestdebater20

Pro

I believe MacDonald's should be banned because it is packed with unhealthy foods which lures people in to eat it and become unhealthy. People are becoming more fat because of McDonalds.I mean if we want to become a healthier, fit nation, then we should ban McDonalds. Do you want to become unhealthy?, Do you want to become healthier? Then agree that McDonalds should be banned!
Debate Round No. 1
TheKingDebater

Con

Thank you Debestdebater20 for accepting and making your introduction. I have some rebuttals for your first round but i'll save them for later. To begin I would like to remind the audience and the opponent what 'junk food' means.

JUNK FOOD- food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation. (Got this from google and not in my own words)

I know that your thinking that McDonalds gives out what you call 'junk food' but as you can see the definition above junk food is a food that is packaged and probably has no preparation. Well, to be honest every superstore sells junk food. They sell food that has very little preparation and probably low in nutrition but healthy in other ways. Every store sells things that are not healthy, why band McDonalds? It's the same as the others. If you think you can ban McDonalds think again, it's like banning Costco,Superstore,Walmart all at once. Every store that you go to has unhealthy food too, it's not like McDonalds is the only one.

My second point is that McDonalds is a Fast-Food restaurant right? And practically all fast-food retaurants are way cheaper than buying organic foods or even going to a retaurant. I am sure that there are thousands or probably millions of people all around the world that rely on McDonalds. It's there main source of food for their everyday life. And taking it away from them is like taking away their life. They can't live without food, food is a need for us. McDonalds is one of the cheapest fast-food restaurants in the world, that's why it has so many happy and thankful customers. Especially when in the USA the minamal wage is 7.25 USD, that's about 60 dollars a day. A normal full meal in a restaurant is about $50 so, that way to expensive for them.And for the organic food don't even thing about that, that's an enormous bill for them.

Lastly, my final point is that McDonalds doesn't only sell junk food, they have a whole different side for healthy things. On the healthy side they have healthy organic drinks,salads,yougurt and burgers and much more, all for a resonable price. For more info on the healthy foods McDoanlds sells has please visit: http://www.drgourmet.com...

Thank-you everyone for reading my main argument and now I shall pass the turn to my opponent (Debestdebater20) to present his points, I wish you good luck!
Debestdebater20

Pro

Debestdebater20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheKingDebater

Con

Vote for Con!
Debestdebater20

Pro

Thankyou TheKingDebator for your argument.

Now I shall move on to my second argument.

Wow, so you came up with reasonable points to stop McDonald from being banned, but I do not buy all that crap. You see you only came up with the positives of Mcdonalds, but there are so many negatives.

Like they put horrible ingredients into there foods such as dextrose into their disgusting fries, read more about it on this link, http://www.healthline.com... , they also put a yoghurty consistency known as pink slime into their awful burgers and terrible chicken nuggets, again read more about it on this link https://en.wikipedia.org...

I mean honestly behind the scenes their food is really disgusting and horrible.

That is my second argument for Mcdonalds to be banned, good luck in the third round!
Debate Round No. 3
TheKingDebater

Con

TheKingDebater forfeited this round.
Debestdebater20

Pro

Come on Thekingdebator, not scared are you!

Don't chicken out, come on think of a argument.

Come on guys vote for pro, vote for me, Im the best debator, Mcdonalds should be banned.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CKearney 1 year ago
CKearney
I found this argument was an invalid, unsound inductive argument. The writers premises seem to be of truth but it is not proven to be completely true thus meaning that the conclusions can be false, making it invalid. It can also be identified as invalid because even if all the premises were true the conclusion to ban all the McDonalds in the world can be false, and that is the case because there are so many other reasons you can be overweight. An unsound argument is an inductive argument that is invalid.
This argument contains the informal fallacy of "Appeal to the People" (Argumentum ad Populum). The writers approach was a direct approach in which the writer addresses one large group of people and arouses the crowd and then tries to get them to accept their conclusion. The writer took advantage of the fact that people are concerned with their appearance and played into their emotions. He asked the people if they wanted to be fit and healthy and that the only way to accomplish that is to ban all the McDonalds. Writer uses propaganda to try to get his audience to accept his conclusion.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
My bad guys, wrong debate with that one.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hoppi// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: A lot of the problems of the debate could have been avoided by defining "atheism" and "lie" in round 1. Pro's own definition included "lack of belief" as part of the definition: nevertheless, Pro clearly meant atheism as "disbelief in God" in construct 3, premise 1. Therefore, I think the debate should be judged using the "disbelief in God" definition, although it would have been better to define it clearly at the beginning. Con argues that atheism is not a lie because a lie is an "intentionally dishonest statement" and if someone believes something is true then they are not intentionally dishonest, even if they are wrong. This argument is convincing, because Pro's definition of atheism is that they "disbelieve" in God, and he defines that as an "assumption of falsehood." Therefore, it's hard to see what's dishonest about it. An assumption of falsehood is less than knowing certainty of falsehood. Arguments to Con, mostly because of Pro's lack of clarity.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains the decision by analyzing some of the major points made in the debate. The voter is not required to cover every argument or lack thereof in the debate, which appears to be what the reporter wants.

Note: While the reporter states new concerns, there is not a clear reason to believe that the voter based his decision on a false view of the debate, and the voter does hit enough points in the debate to meet the standards.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Everything// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: .

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a period.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.