The Instigator
Jordan56
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
M4sterDeb8er
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Suing Fast Food Restaurants due to Obesity is Wrong.

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...
Jordan56
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,848 times Debate No: 25351
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Jordan56

Pro

I would like to argue that suing fast food restaurants due to obesity is wrong and makes no sense.

I am a very novice debater with not much writing background, so I am looking for an opponent that won't butcher me.

First Round is Acceptance.
M4sterDeb8er

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Jordan56

Pro

I want to thank my opponent, M4sterDeb8er for accepting this debate. Hopefully all goes well. I'll begin with a few points.

- Personal Preference


Why is it necessary to sue a company that you chose to eat at? The food wasn’t poisoned, spoilt, or molded. You go to any restaurant accepting what the chef has to give you with the knowledge that the food won’t be at its best, especially fast food restaurants. When eating out, you have the option of checking the calories of the various menus at restaurants. If not there are laws that are being established requiring that nutritional information be provided to their fast food patrons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

If you were, let say, to go to a drug store and buy a pack of cigarettes, you are giving a warning that smoking can lead to lung cancer and other problems. Now are you going to come back and sue the person that sold you the pack when you’re in the hospital dying away? No, it would make no sense. You were giving the warning and went about smoking anyway.

The same goes with fast food restaurants. You know that the food being served to you is unhealthy and not the best to eat. You are given the option to look at the nutritional facts. If you are giving all this info, why eat there if you’re trying to watch your weight? Why sue the company when you’re sick of obesity? These are questions that you need to ask yourself. When given all the warnings, you chose to eat there at the end of the day.


- Obesity comes from excessive eating and laziness

Next thing to acknowledge is how obese people got that way in the first place. I’m pretty sure that if you eat, on average, about 10 meals at McDonald's a month, you are eating healthy food when not fast food, exercising, and following regular sleeping patterns you will not become obese. So how does one become obese?

Obesity comes from inactivity or medical conditions/genetics. By being lazy and not exercising, fat accumulates in your system and your size increases. Yes, the fast food establishment didn’t tell you to take a jog after you ate that burger, but is this their responsibility? It is up to you to maintain a healthy living and watch your size. What’s next? Sue the gym for not helping lose the fat. Did you even go to the gym?

http://www.webmd.com...

Again I ask, why sue the fast food establishment? They had nothing to do with your unhealthy eating patterns besides provide the food. Bringing me back to my first point. You chose to pick up the food and eat it.


- What is the main goal for suing a multi-million restaurant over your physical health?

Obviously, the goal for the established prosecution is the money in return. But what is the money being used for? Is it for your doctor visit to help cure the obesity or is it to buy more French fries? Or are you just trying your luck at some fast cash.

The latter two seems to be the case. You sue the company but is your lifestyle going to change after. Can I check up on you 2 years later and see that you lost your weight and healthy as ever. What if, to your surprise, you win the lawsuit and as a result the fast food establishment that you chose to eat at closes down. What’s next?

Clearly the answers to all these questions are after you sue the company, you will go back to your usual ways and eat junk, get fat, and become obese. Yes, you sued the company, but you learned nothing and the closing of the company will only cause you to go and find your junk food elsewhere and end up suing another company.
M4sterDeb8er

Con

In most cases, my friend, I would agree with you. In this instance, however, I must argue that there is at least one case in which suing a fast food restaurant would be acceptable. Namely, when children are involved. Children are young and defenseless, and will generally do whatever they are told. If a fast food restaurant makes commercials marketed to children and airs them, I think that that restaurant deserves some of the blame if the child in question becomes obese or diabetic. The child has no power to purchase fast food, but his or her parents do. The parents do not have to purchase the food for their children, but in the end, the parents will do whatever the child wants to get them to shut up. I also note that unlike cigarettes, fast food does not have a warning symbol on it. Most menus do not have Daily Value numbers for food. Not many people know how much saturated fat is recommended per day. A Big Mac has more than 88 percent of the Daily Value for saturated fat, but the nutrition facts on the Big Mac box do not mention this. Fast food restaurants do not tell you this because they know that if people knew EXACTLY how unhealthy their food was, they would never come back.

Fast food restaurants target the innocent and selectvely inform customers of the nutrition facts of food. They deserve to be liable.

Futhermore, I can personally atest that many of my friends are overweight, including my best friend. He eats fast food three times a week, but he also hikes with the Boy Scouts constantly, works 12 hours a day on his feet during the summer, and is on my schools wrestling team. He still weights north of 200, and he's 5'6. Exercise unfortunately does not work for everyone.

Besides all this, what exactly would be the harm of suing a fast food restaurant? The profit margins of McDonalds are sufficient to pay out 50 million a year and come out smiling.

All in all, I really don't see what point you are trying to make here. Those restaurants need to pay.
Debate Round No. 2
Jordan56

Pro

-Children are young and defenseless, and will generally do whatever they are told….. The child has no power to purchase fast food, but his or her parents do.

In this statement you are saying that the defenseless children depends on their parents to make the decision for them. If the parents are wise and knowledgeable they would know not to feed their children such unhealthy quality food. You said in your statement that parents just buy in to their children’s complaint and buy them the food anyway. I have to disagree with that. Yes, a lot of people don’t know how to care for children now a day but there are good amounts that do. When I was a kid, I would whine to my parents for things I wanted and they would tell me no and that’s what I would have to accept. If you are saying parents can’t handle their kids then that’s a whole new issue that needs to be worked on.

As stated in my opening argument, there are laws being instated that will enforce the nutritional info be provided to their customers. If parents choose not to look at this info and feed their children junk that’s their own problem and they will have to deal with the consequences.


-Kids Meals are used for a reason

Also in most fast food restaurants I go to, I notice that there is a kids menu. These items are significantly smaller and sometimes provide healthy stuff such as fruits and juice boxes instead of soda. Obviously the kids menu is much less calories than normal menu items and should be taken into consideration. If parents choose to buy a massive burger for their child instead of a small item from the kids menu that is just idiocy on there end and really isn’t acceptable.
M4sterDeb8er

Con

You are correct, Pro, that kid's meals are used for a reason: to lure in children with clowns and toys and such. I think that is poor business ethics to market a product that parents buy for their children to the children themselves. Parents are usually the ones that purchase fast food for their children, but kids DO get allowance. Kids have every right to go into a fast food restaurant and purchase food, and they do. And the primary option in kid's meals has always been a soda and fries. Usually, you have to ASK to change your order.

The other problem I see with marketing to children is that children build habits in their childhood they take to their adult years. If a kid grows up buying fast food, there is a pretty good chance that kid will buy fast food as an adult.

I'm only talking ethics here, it is not illegal by any means to sell things to children, but I think that intentionally endangering the lives of millions of children is fair grounds for a lawsuit. Don't you?

I will also repeat what I said: The nutrition facts on food are very vague. I plan to become a physician, and I still do not know off the top of my head how much saturated fat is recommended for a 2000 calorie diet per day. I do, however, remember that a Big Mac contains 88% that daily value: http://caloriecount.about.com...

The Chicken McNuggets are not much better: http://caloriecount.about.com.... The numbers are lower, but this is part of a kid's meal. Change the numbers to reflect a 1000 calorie diet, and you have a horrible meal there. And this is just the main course. Even with healthy options, this meal will reach about 450 calories...for one meal.

Fast food is bad for you, nobody labels things with Daily Value percentages, and they market directly to vulnerable consumers. They should make healthier food in general, or stop marketing to children, but if fast food companies decide to keep operating as they do, they should get sued.
Debate Round No. 3
Jordan56

Pro

I want to thank my opponent again for taking on this argument.

You made some valid points and again its all about personal preference. It is their fault that people choose to eat at fast food restaurants and that should be taken into consideration.

You said in your last argument that if you sue a fast food restaurant it is not much of a punishment and their is no harm in doing it, but its all about if it is the right thing to do. What do you actually gain by suing the company? Fast food is bad for you as you stated, with this knowledge people should not eat their and in the end sue them. It is wrong and not fair to the company.

Sorry my argument couldn't be longer and more thought through. I had little time this week. Vote as you see fit.
M4sterDeb8er

Con

There are a lot of things a person could do with a large cash settlement. A person could, as you suggested, use the money to continue eating fast food and living an unhealthy lifestyle. A person could use it to go to a fat camp or a gym, or to build one for the matter. I think the real importance is not paying out the money, but to show the world that a fast food restaurant has been successfully sued, and that the restaurant is guilty of poor business practices. The restaurant will not care about the money so much as the negative publicity cast upon the restaurant by the case. In short, yes, it would make a difference to sue a fast food restaurant: it would force them to change or be foresaken by the public.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by M4sterDeb8er 4 years ago
M4sterDeb8er
I don't want to be a tool or anything, but someone voted that Jordan has better grammar and spelling. This is obviously not true. Please vote accordingly. I can accept a tie, but losing that would be insulting.
Posted by Jordan56 4 years ago
Jordan56
I really hope con doesnt forfeit I was looking forword to this debate
Posted by Jordan56 4 years ago
Jordan56
Given, giving...Just read it and saw all the mistakes. You can mark me off points for that if you want. I hate spelling lol -____-
Posted by Jordan56 4 years ago
Jordan56
5 miles WOW, I can only do 2. Also, I will post my argument tonight once I finish school.
Posted by M4sterDeb8er 4 years ago
M4sterDeb8er
I am really skinny, by the way, because I run 5 miles a day.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
@imabench - Sounds tempting . . .
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Same, but I think it would be funny as sh*t if someone with a really really fat guy accepted this debate as con
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I agree with Jordan56.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
Jordan56M4sterDeb8erTied
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: Counter VB Akemi
Vote Placed by Akemi_Loli_Mokoto 4 years ago
Akemi_Loli_Mokoto
Jordan56M4sterDeb8erTied
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: I agree with Jordan. His points are totally valid.
Vote Placed by WriterSelbe 4 years ago
WriterSelbe
Jordan56M4sterDeb8erTied
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: I agreed with the pro from the beginning. However, con did not make very convincing arguments. He did not blatantly say or find any evidence that put fast food companies in the wrong. He claimed they mislead, but there was no evidence for that. Fast food companies are required to provide health facts. It is the customer's job to find them. Talking about personal experience happened on both sides, which is bad. One should look at things objectively.
Vote Placed by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
Jordan56M4sterDeb8erTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Jordan56 did well considering this was his first debate. I thought he had a pretty solid case in his first argument, but con made an excellent point regarding children and pretty much dismantled pro's case. He showed that, at least in some cases, suing fast food restaurants is justified.