The Instigator
HailedPanic913
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theater

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,120 times Debate No: 58769
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

HailedPanic913

Pro

Prices are ridiculous get the same thing at the store next door for a way cheaper price when at the theater you pay 2x more.
Zarroette

Con

I thank HailedPanic913 for the opportunity to debate this topic.

Since my opponent is affirming the resolution, he/she has the BoP to prove that people should sneak snacks in the movie theatre. In the event that there not a convincing argument from either side, I win.

Definitions:

Sneak: To behave in a cowardly manner [1].

Snack: a small portion of food or drink or a light meal, especially one eaten between regular meals [2].

A ‘snack’ can be typically purchased from a movie theatre’s snack-shop/food-shop, but in the case of Pro’s argument, this snack would be purchased elsewhere, hence ‘sneaking snacks into the movie theatre’.

P1: Property rights are well founded

In a world where there are finite resources, it is not possible that everyone owns the very best of anything. Hence, there needs to be a way in which to allocate things to people, or else people will fight over resources (in this case, property). If someone were able to simply invade your property, business, family and other ventures which require secure property will not be able to occur successfully [3][11].

Imagine if there was no recourse in bringing a herd of elephants into a movie theatre. People would be frightened. No one would be able to see the movie, especially if the elephants sat in the front row. Clearly, the people who own the business should have the right to prevent this, and hence they should have the right to property rules.

As such, the right to property law, as long as it is compliant with governmental law, people should have the right to own land and set rules as to the land. Property rights is not just to do with owning the property, but also what can be done on the property [4].

A1: It is against cinema rules in many places

As set in my premise, property rights are important in people being able to generate goods and services, raise families etc. In regards to a business selling a movie experience, if the rules say that you are not allowed to bring in outside food, then that is the rule. The business has every right to enforce this rule, and even deny you service if you refuse to comply, as indicated by property laws. If you are caught and asked to leave, then you will be prosecuted for trespassing [10].

Even the word ‘sneaking’ implies that this is not being done with permission, which means that Pro has already half-argued his/her way out of this debate. These sources indicate that there are plenty of places that have rules which do not allow outside snacks (not purchased on the property) to be brought into the cinema [5][6][7][8][9]. My argument is that in places where you would be required to ‘sneak’ snacks into movies, almost certainly because it is against the rules of the business owners, which is infringing on a person’s property rights.

It would be like buying a ticket for a roller-coaster, and then running up the tracks by yourself, without ever stepping foot in the ride. Yes, you have bought the ticket to have access to the roller-coaster, but that does not mean you can do whatever you want. There are rules in place as to what you can do with the ticket.


A2: Moral consideration

What kind of person would be so deceitful about their contract with a business? What kind of people would not adhere to the rules of a business, and have the audacity to pretend that they are?

  1. 1. A person who tacitly agrees to a contract, and then breaks the contract is deceitful (lying)
  2. 2. Deceit (lying) is immoral

C. Therefore, being deceitful (lying) about your contract with the cinema is immoral

Immanuel Kant outlined in his Critique of Pure Reason that to lie, ever, is immoral. This stems from the basis that treating a person as a ‘means to an end’, rather than ‘an end in themselves’, is inherently immoral – it is a violation of the Categorical Imperative. This is due to lying not having universality, in that if everyone were to lie about their contract with the cinema, then the cinema’s service (i.e. the selling of snacks) would not be able to operate, due to having zero profits. Since this service of the business would not be able to function without people adhering to the tacit contract, it would be never okay to lie or be deceitful, in this regard.

To act morally is to have full control over our actions. As I have shown, the motive of my opponent is not sound, and thus his action is not moral, via Kant’s deontology.


CA1: Expense is irrelevant

“Prices are ridiculous get the same thing at the store next door for a way cheaper price when at the theater you pay 2x more.

If you don’t agree with the service being sold, then do not buy it. Part of the service is not bringing outside food into the place. Cinemas are well within their right to enforce such a rule.

Not only that, but I have argued why this is immoral, too.

References:

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://www.discerningtoday.org... (page 6)

[4] Badenhorst, PJ, Juanita M. Pienaar, and Hanri Mostert. Silberberg and Schoeman's The Law of Property. 5th Edition. Durban: LexisNexis/Butterworths, 2006, p. 9.

[5] http://www.wikihow.com...

[6] http://forums.whirlpool.net.au...

[7] http://www.mumsnet.com...

[8] http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk...

[9] http://eyesonthedollar.com...

[10] http://www.lawguru.com...

[11] http://skepticlawyer.com.au...

Debate Round No. 1
HailedPanic913

Pro

HailedPanic913 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
HailedPanic913

Pro

Sorry for not posting I was out of town anyway we are still paying for the movie. Isn't snacks considered 'belongings' though just as if a cell phone was consumable we wouldn't be allowed to bring it in.

Here is an example of a guy who thought the price of M'Ms where ridiculous look under 'Here"s a copy of my original Wise Bread post:'

I am saying people should be allowed to bring in there own food they wouldn't have to 'sneak' as you defined in your argument.
Zarroette

Con

I thank Pro for his arguments.

P1: Property rights are well founded

My opponent never touched this premise, thus it is conceded (so far).

A1: It is against cinema rules in many places

I will address my opponent’s indirect counter-argument to this later. Although, my opponent has failed to address components such as:

  1. 1. Why he has the right to break property rules
  2. 2. Why he has the right, if caught, to illegally break trespassing laws

Therefore, these parts are to be extended.


A2: Moral consideration

My opponent has completely failed to consider the moral implications of ‘Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theatre’. There is not a trace of my arguments here in his counter-response. Therefore, all of my arguments here have been dropped, which is enough to win me the debate.


Counter-arguments:

we are still paying for the movie.”

This does not excuse rule breaking, as part of the service is obeying the rules, as I have already argued.


“Isn't snacks considered 'belongings' though just as if a cell phone was consumable we wouldn't be allowed to bring it in.

I have outlined several sources that indicate bringing food into the movie theatre is not allowed. My opponent’s unfounded semantics on the word ‘belongings’ does not refute any of my examples.


“Here is an example of a guy who thought the price of M'Ms where ridiculous look under 'Here"s a copy of my original Wise Bread post:'”

I assume that you forgot to post your example, but even if someone found the price to be ridiculous, this is precisely your original argument that I have already addressed (see CA1: Expense is Irrelevant). The price of the food is irrelevant. If you do not want to purchase the movie theatre’s experience, if you want to break their rules, then do not purchase the experience. Paying for a ticket does not excuse you from breaking their other rules.

“I am saying people should be allowed to bring in there own food they wouldn't have to 'sneak' as you defined in your argument.”

This is entirely incorrect. The resolution pertains to ‘sneaking’, which is something that my opponent is trying to affirm. I did not make the resolution; I am not the one who defined the debate with the word ‘sneak’. My opponent did! Here, he is trying to blame me for arguing against the resolution!

Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theatre”, is the resolution.

Debate Round No. 3
HailedPanic913

Pro

I am truly sorry for forgetting my evidence I will tend to that next round.

Anyway how is this trespassing though tres"pass

/G2;trespəs,-G6;pas/

verb

gerund or present participle: trespassing
1.
enter the owner's land or property without permission.
"there is no excuse for trespassing on railroad property"

synonyms: intrude on, encroach on, enter without permission,

Saying that trespassing specifically means a me not my snack. It still makes no sense why its a wrong . Yes but if the theatre would allow you to bring your own snacks what if they don't have a snack that you like?
Zarroette

Con

I thank Pro for his arguments.

P1: Property rights are well founded


Still dropped, since I will address the trespassing contention elsewhere.

A1: It is against cinema rules in many places

“Anyway how is this trespassing though tres"pass…Saying that trespassing specifically means a me not my snack. It still makes no sense why its a wrong . Yes but if the theatre would allow you to bring your own snacks what if they don't have a snack that you like?”

As I argued earlier (in the opening round), a business has every right to property laws, one of which includes trespassing. The business has every right to ask you to leave the property, which would likely happen if you are caught breaking their terms of service rules. Saying that “they don’t have a snack that you like” is not grounds in which to break property law/rules, as I have outlined in A1 and A2. To clarify, trespassing is wrong because:

  1. 1. It is illegal
  2. 2. It is immoral
  3. 3. It breaks your terms of service with the business

Also, to be clear, how does trespassing play into this? Here’s how:

  1. 1. You sneak food into a movie theatre
  2. 2. You are caught
  3. 3. The business asks you to leave
  4. 4. You say no because you say you should be allowed to do it
  5. C. You are now trespassing, as the owners of the land no longer give you permission to be there

Besides, this is only one of the components of my entire argument, so there are other parts which negate the resolution. The moral consequences come well before the trespassing ones (the fact that you are knowingly breaking rules in the first place), and so even if my opponent is right with his trespassing objection (which I absolutely do not concede in the slightest), the moral issue is still upheld.

As this is my opponent’s sole contention that has not been addressed or dropped by my opponent, I am still winning this debate despite his arguments here, because my other objections come before the trespassing issue. I could leave this round blank and I would still be winning.

A2: Moral consideration

Still completely dropped, and I do mean completely.

Counter-arguments:


All of my other counter-arguments (besides the one addressing trespassing), are dropped.

If my opponent makes new arguments in the final round, I reserve the right to make new rebuttals.


Debate Round No. 4
HailedPanic913

Pro

I see your point but if we could bring in our own snacks, which wouldn't then get caught, then no trespassing which would result our problem or even at least sign a petition and lower the prices.
Zarroette

Con

I thank Pro for his final arguments.

P1: Property rights are well founded


My opponent does not argue against my premise, which showed that property rights were well founded. Not once does my opponent try to argue why allowing businesses to have rules is a bad idea, whilst I have provided several arguments to affirm that it is a good idea. Therefore my opponent has conceded that property rights are well-founded.

A1: It is against cinema rules in many places


My opponent’s final counter-arguments against me arguments here are undermined extremely heavily by their moral shortcomings, which I will address under the appropriate heading.

Also, since my opponent has not touched my initial premise arguments, and since this argument logically follows, it should follow that you should not sneak snacks in to the movie theatre, if it is against the rules of the business (which I have shown that it is in many places, which my opponent does not deny. Besides, if it was okay with the rules, you would not have to sneak the snacks in, would you?)

A2: Moral consideration


This is my opponent’s final argument. It could have two different meanings, due to its vagueness:

I see your point but if we could bring in our own snacks, which wouldn't then get caught, then no trespassing which would result our problem or even at least sign a petition and lower the prices.”

The latter part (non-bolded), which pertains to way in which the situation could be ‘improved’, are irrelevant to whether we should do something in accordance with the current rules.

My first interpretation:

He argues that no trespassing would occur if no one was caught. This is akin to saying that if you murder someone and no one ever found the body, then that is morally permissible because the body was not found. Since my opponent has completely ignored my moral framework, he instantly concedes that his arguments are immoral, as they have been reduced to ‘don’t get caught and it’s not a crime’. This is a morally repugnant idea, which I have shown to be wholly unfavourable (through Kant’s universality moral law, which is never mentioned, let alone addressed by my opponent).

My second interpretation:

‘*If* we could bring in snacks’ is not part of the resolution. The fact is that you are not allowed to (hence the sneaking), therefore you should not, for moral and legal reasons. If you were allowed to bring them in, then there would be no debate. The fact that this is a debate proves that snacks are not allowed to be brought into some movie theatres.

Conclusion – why I have won this debate

  1. 1. In a moral sense, my opponent’s arguments are atrocious, and for whatever reason, he completely ignores my (Kant’s) moral framework
  2. 2. My opponent never rebuts ‘why property rights are a good idea’
  3. 3. My opponent has no response to ‘if you get caught, you are trespassing, yet my opponent thinks it would be okay to stay’ (what I argued)
  4. 4. My opponent’s arguments are entirely unsourced. He did not even provide the source that he said he would. As a result, a lot of what he says are bare assertions. Meanwhile, important claims of mine are sourced (and my opponent never questions the legitimacy of them).
  5. 5. I have shown why, at every point in the debate, why my opponent’s arguments are either irrelevant, or can be met with a convincing counter-argument


I thank Pro for this debate, and I thank anyone who read it :)

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sssstudderinssstarchchild 2 years ago
sssstudderinssstarchchild
But tragically, in the end...tit tis...ghetTOOOOOO...beyond bias of any presumed/assumed nature.
Posted by sssstudderinssstarchchild 2 years ago
sssstudderinssstarchchild
Tit tis and tit tis not a social norm...tit tis and tit tis not counterculture behavior...the answer walks a rigid line, but leans in a linear fashion...both directions.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I agree. Movie Theaters are very annoying in how they make you bring in snacks from elsewhere. Conveniently, there is a drug store across from my theater.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
HailedPanic913ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, not well-done arguments, and no sources for pro
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
HailedPanic913ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this vote shouldn't be a surprise. Forfeited round, dropped arguments, no sources, Con wins.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
HailedPanic913ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No contest. Pro has promised to provide evidence later, but later seems to be a different debate. Con mercilessly shot pro's case full of bigger holes than the case actually was... Conduct for forfeit. BTW: just claim to be a diabetic, and don't bring in the same stuff they sell.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
HailedPanic913ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession and Pro dropped a ton of Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
HailedPanic913ZarroetteTied
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: Pro dropped almost all of Cin's aarguments.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
HailedPanic913ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The Conduct goes to Cathy because Pro forfeited, also Pro made some grammatical errors, lastly Z used legal sources and presented excellent arguments.