The Instigator
General_Grievous
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Should people who don't take care of their bodies be allowed to sue fast food companies?

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...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 720 times Debate No: 62427
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

General_Grievous

Con

McDonalds has a history of lawsuits. Remember the girl who burned herself when she spilled coffe on herself? McDonalds was sued for not having clearly visible "Caution Hot!" labels on containers for coffee and hot chocolate. But this debate will focus on the people who eat regularly at McDonalds, (or any fast food place for that matter) don't excircise, consequently become fat, then sue claiming that the food is unhealthy. Let's keep this clean and quick.
Commondebator

Pro

It seems like this is a case of discrimination against fat people, for suing fast food restaurants.
Upon investigation, it sees as if my opponent is implying that fat people shouldn't be aloud to sue, because they eat constantly at an unhealthy restaurant.

"don't excircise, consequently become fat, then sue claiming that the food is unhealthy."

Are they wrong that the food is unhealthy? If food is unhealthy in any manner, and has a negative consequence on their body, regardless of physical form, people should be allowed to sue the food, because its unhealthy. It seems as if you are implying that because they eat there and become fat, they shouldn't be allowed to sue because of that. If the public restaurant is healthy, anyone should sue
Debate Round No. 1
General_Grievous

Con

We all know that fast food places generally serve unhealthy and fattening foods, there's no denying that. But when you CHOOSE to ingest unhealthy food should you be surprised by the fact that you gain weight? A person I isn't forced to eat fast food, and lawsuits that attack the businesses that serve unhealthy burgers and fries are frivolous and unnecessary. Now if the food was poisonous then that would be a different story. But knowing full well that the food is fattening and their waist size is increasing, people still continue to eat fast food. Then when they finally realize their size they sue, because they are to irresponsible to stop eating fast food. If you can't be resoponsible with your health, then don't punish others.
Commondebator

Pro

I believe that my opponent implying that since the place is unhealthy, fat people don't have the right to sue, because they should eat a their own risk? It is a public restaurant. It should be their choice to eat as much as they like, and if there is something bad about that food, they should have the right to sue. The food is a hazard to human health in some degree, and if someone eats there constantly and there are signs of extreme obesity, they should have the right to sue! Unlike smoking, there is no "Public safety awareness" about fat foods. Its a public restaurant with no age restriction! My opponent states that if it is poison, its a different story. I fail to see the difference. Both are harmful to health, and eat at own risk.
Debate Round No. 2
General_Grievous

Con

You justify a person's right to sue because they aren't intelligent enough to know when to stop. In other words punish the company because I made the bad choice. This logic is running rampant in America, as more and more people choose not to take care of themselves. If McDonalds was truly bad and directly responsible for your deteriorating health, then very few would spend their money there, and the food chain would close. People should take care of themselves by working out and keeping their weight under control. And some do. But most voluntarily give their money to obtain unhealthy food. In the end it's the person's fault they are fat, not the companies. The companies there to make money and produce jobs, not to make sure you are healthy.
Commondebator

Pro

"You justify a person's right to sue because they aren't intelligent enough to know when to stop. "

What? You suspend a persons right to sue because they aren't intelligent enough? There is no sources for that statement. But due to the limited character limit, I understand. McDonalds is still in business, BECAUSE for the amount of chemicals put, and the high fat. If you publicize further (like smoking) the fact that McDonalds is very dangerous and can make you obese, there is a high chance that it well get shut down. There is no law preventing the amount of burgers eaten.

People shouldn't be allowed to sue, because they have been given the freedom to chose? There is nothing that prevents you from eating that much food. It is public.
Debate Round No. 3
General_Grievous

Con

But where is the personal responsibility of the individual? If I'm 300 pounds and I'm eating fast food weekly then I am not intelligent enough, or simply uncaring, of my personal health. Then when a doctor tells me I have heart problems, I sue the business that I paid. And you have no sources claiming McDonalds is in business purely because of the chemicals they use. There is no law preventing me from eating fast food, but the law does allow me to sue and win against companies because of irresponsible choices I have made. Where is the logic in that? Obeasuty due to fatty foods tells everyone "this person cares little for their own health, eating excessive junk food" yet that person sues the company because of the bad choices they made.
Commondebator

Pro

Apologies if I was misunderstood on the fact that they are in business "purely" because the chemicals put. The food, and marketing strategy is a big role in success. This is a lawful case suing) not a moral case (responsibility). If the person is unhealthy, and frequently eats there. How exactly can you blame the person, when the food the first place is dangerous? The person has a choice, yes. But, there is no warning or law stating that McDonalds can give you. If a person isn't breaking the law, and the food harms them, how is the person at fault? McDonalds should include more warning labels, so that they wouldn't sue. There isn't any evidence "that person sues the company". But character limit is low. So, people should be allowed to sue.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Those poor souls have gland problems. That one right beneath their noses.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
whoops typo"it was allowed. Apologies.
Posted by General_Grievous 2 years ago
General_Grievous
I'm against lawsuits filed by overweight people trying to blame their weight on the companies
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I like what Ted Nugent,the rock singer, said. " Why should I pay for someone's healthcare that does not care about their health."
Posted by timlopez1331 2 years ago
timlopez1331
I'm confused about which side you will be debating for. May you clarify?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
General_GrievousCommondebatorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro rightly steered the argument towards jurisprudence. I think that this debate would have been more interesting if differently worded.
Vote Placed by KatieKat99 2 years ago
KatieKat99
General_GrievousCommondebatorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: law case vs responsibility case was finally made by pro
Vote Placed by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
General_GrievousCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con raised some interesting points and offered a second viewpoint and opinion (from a business standpoint). Pro also had punctuation errors in some of his arguments. But neither really proved or backed up their points. But basing off arguing skills, con takes the cake.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
General_GrievousCommondebatorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't really feel Con established a good grounding to make the assertion complete, Pro was able to foil a good portion of what Con brought to the table as a 'plank' to the argument.