The Instigator
Crazy4Steelers07
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

The Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food/drink in their ballpark.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 7 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,284 times Debate No: 8617
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

Crazy4Steelers07

Con

I'll Allow My Challenger to go first
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to Crazy4Steelers 07 for starting this debate, I should like to make the following arguments in favour of the resolution:

Contention 1
--------------
Most Texans are extremely fat so anything that discourages them from stuffing their faces, even if it is just for a short time, is beneficial to their health.

http://www.window.state.tx.us...

Contention 2
--------------
Many Houston Astro fans are vagrants who are unable to afford the high prices of alcohol in the ballpark and would, if they were allowed, bring turps and methylated spirits to the game with them, and this would clearly present a fire hazard.

http://www.homelesshouston.org...

Contention 3
--------------
The locals in Houston tend to eat very messy food - shrimps in cocktail sauce, beef brisket with baked beans and packets of Fritos with chilli poured in are all favourites there. This means that if anything exciting enough to make the fans jump up ever happened during an Astro's game, unlike hotdogs and burgers, the Houston fans' food would fly in all directions and that would cost the supporters a fortune in laundry bills.

http://chowhound.chow.com...

Contention 4
--------------
Houston are currently rock bottom of their league and the extra revenue gained from sales of hotdogs and sodas will enable the Astros to invest in some decent players, thus providing the fans with a glimmer of a hope of a victory at some time in the future.

http://mlb.mlb.com...

For these reasons, I affirm that the Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food and drink to be consumed in their ballpark.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Crazy4Steelers07

Con

First of all, let me thank my opponent for excepting this debate. I'm sure it will be fun.

I will start by presenting my own case (as I have not already) and then respond to my opponents arguments.

Benefit-
Something that is advantageous or good; an advantage.

Contention 1- Avoids Price Gouging
The worst part about going to an Astro's game, or any sporting event for that matter, is going to the consecion stand and paying $6 for a soda and another $7.25 for Nachos and another $4.25 for Peanuts (http://www.chron.com...). If you drink two beers in the game, and get the Nachos and Peanuts you've put down $23.5 on food at the game, or you could buy 10 Nachos for Taco Bell ($.79,$.89,$.99), a case of soda, and 5 bags of peanuts. Now wouldn't that be a better way to enjoy the game? The Point is that the prices inside the stadium are reqiculous. Anyone can see that, and if you paying all that money for a ticket then it would be beneficial to at least have the option to combate their rediculous prices.

Contention 2- Allow Bottled Water
Why should you have to pay $4 for a bottle water, what if I get thirsty I can't even have water? Pretty simple to me.

Contention 3- Everyone else is doing
Of the 30 Ball parks in Major League Baseball, 29 allow some kind of food/drink into their ballparks. Only the Astro's don't. (http://www.chron.com...). However the Houston Astros owner attests that banning outside food/drink is "kind of a tradition". Well that's a dumb tradition, why would you want you fans to go hunger/thirsty in the ball park because they can't afford food/drink inside the ballpark. That tradition has probally spraked the tradition in houston where everyone leave the game starting in the six or seventh inning. If the Astros cared about they're fans they would benefit them by allowing outside food and drink, all the other ball clubs do.

Contention 4- The economy
If you haven't notice the economy isn't that great, Houston just doesn't get it. The Gaints do, "It gives (fans) a choice, and it gives them options, especially in this economic climate," said Giants spokeswoman Shana Daum. "Now more than ever, I think they appreciate it." Oh course fans would appreciate having that option, that's all where asking for her is to allow fans to be able to take food/drinks into the stadium if they want to. Yeah, there's a bunch of rich Houstonians who don't care if they pay $7 for beer and another $7 for a hot dog, but us average joes out there we can't afford to pay that. Honestly, people would be more willing to go to more games if they could bring they're own food. Think about, on the way home from work swing by McDonalds, go to the game and chow down on your Big Mac, or even make your own homemade sandwhich and take it to the game. You could even buy a twelve pack of soda, throw it in a cooler with some ice and boom you have drinks for the whole family: $3 for the twelve pack, $1 for the Ice, You already have a cooler, Total cost per game: $4 or you can pay the same price for one soda. Your choice.

Awnsering My opponents arguments:
Contention 1- Ok, I agree Texans are fat, but not allowing them to bring in out side food and drink doesn't mean much. You can't sit their and tell me that ballpark food is healthy. What constitutes ball park food: Pizza, Hot Dogs, Hamburgers, Beer, Soda, French Fries, oh and only at Minute Maid: "A ginormous baked potato buried in cheese, loaded down with sweet pulled pork meat, doused in barbecue sauce, smothered in onions, and topped with jalapeno peppers. No, this [isn't just a fat boy's] dream, it's a true ballpark delicacy that can only be had at Minute Maid Park in Houston." (http://sports.espn.go.com...) None of those foods are healthy, they're all just exspensive. If someone wanted to bring in healthy food (like Subway for instance, or a salad) they can't cause they're barred from doing so. And trust me, I know some fat people, and they like to eat. So since you still have the food available they will buy it, eat it, and go back for seconds. These people don't care how much it costs, they're just gonna eat anything in sight.

Contention 2- Most ball parks, even when allowing food/drink into they're ballparks still ban alcholic beverages, and for good reason. They don't want twenty thousand drunk people running around the stadium, by selling the alchol they can limit drunkness.

Contention 3-"A ginormous baked potato buried in cheese, loaded down with sweet pulled pork meat, doused in barbecue sauce, smothered in onions, and topped with jalapeno peppers. No, this [isn't just a fat boy's] dream, it's a true ballpark delicacy that can only be had at Minute Maid Park in Houston." How is this not messy? Besides, I've never been to an Astros game without getting ketchup and mustard all over myself. Call me a messy eatter, but I'm pretty sure the food they serve at the ballpark is messy, so if fans where aloud to bring food in it wouldn't be any messier.

Contention 4- Ok, Houston sucks, but maybe they sould think of another strategy. How about they allow outside food and drink, and then when people don't have spend as much on consessions more people will be willing to come to the games, you know the cheap people that like to save every penny, and even if you allow outside food/drink it wouldn't hurt revenues as much as you'd expect because many fans would still buy food at the ball park. Look at the Yankees, they always have the most money in baseball, and they allow outside food/drink. And it doesn't hurt them, why? 'Cause they sell out they're games. If the Astros could draw more people to the games (I know they're bad, but have promotional nights or something), forcing the already supportive fans to dish out more just weakens the fan base.

In conclusion, you have to look at the 'benefit' to the Astros fans. Clearly they're would be a benefit to the fans by having more options, reducing price gouging, and the Helping they're fans combate the Economy. These benefits out weigh any of my opponents arguments because all of the other MLB teams have opened up there stadiums to allowing outside food/drink. Obviously, it would be advantagous for Astro fans to be allowed to bring in outside food/drink. Come on Astros, get with the program!
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to my opponent for his considered response, I should like to address his contentions as follows:

Contention 1- Avoids Price Gouging

Say you and your partner go to a cabaret show such as the Moulin Rouge in Paris and you are seated at a table near the stage. Whilst you are savouring your foie gras with candied figs and sipping your Dom P�rignon champagne you notice the couple on the adjacent table have brought with them a bargain bucket of chicken and a bottle of Pepsi from KFC which they proceed to devour without the inconvenience of cutlery, crockery or glassware. What would you expect the management to do? Chuck them out, obviously! They may have paid for their tickets to see the show but that doesn't entitle them to scoff their own grub while the other guests have paid handsomely to dine on the haute cuisine provided by the establishment.

The same principle applies to many sporting events, the organisers supplement their income from the money received from food outlets and that helps them keep the ticket prices down.

Contention 2- Allow Bottled Water

MLB games don't usually last longer than 3 hours and a human can survive 3 days without water. No problem there as far as I can see.

Contention 3- Everyone Else is Doing

It may be the case that other ballparks allow fans to bring their own food in but, in many cases, their ticket prices are higher. That's to make up for the lost income from food concessions. If you don't mind not eating or drinking for a couple of hours or so, two adults and two kids can watch the game from the outfield deck for a total of only $16.00. (1)

So, ballparks that charge more for their tickets effectively dictate that fans that can manage to go a few hours without burying their snouts in the trough are subsidising those fans that feel they cannot enjoy themselves unless they are continually shovelling food down their necks.

Contention 4- The Economy

$7 for a beer does seem a bit steep and, I agree, many people will find it difficult to justify this expenditure given the current economic climate. The trick, though, is to swing by Macky D's first, pig out on Big Mac's and fries, then go to the pub and down half a dozen pints of the old lunatic broth. Then you won't feel hungry and will be satisfied with only three or four beers from the bar in the ballpark, thus making a huge saving

In conclusion, the Houston Astro's are benefiting their fans by keeping ticket prices low, which is only made possible by not allowing people to bring food into the ballpark from outside.

Thank you.

(1) http://houston.astros.mlb.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Crazy4Steelers07

Con

Summing up my opponents arguments: They can go without food/drink, if they want cheap food they should eat before they go to the game, and finally that the main reason outside food/drink is banned is because the people who paid all that money for they're 'up class' food, shouldn't have to watch people 'munch down' on 'KFC. Ok, first of all I don't think anyone is going to call ballpark food classy, or fancy. Yeah, its expensive but that doesn't make it fancy. Sure, you should feel stupid for paying $6 for a hamburger when the guy next to them paid $1 for it at McDonalds, but that doesn't mean it distracts from the enjoyment of the ball game. Think about when you go on a plane, they don't force you to have they're plane food, you can buy food at the airport and take it on the plane.

My opponents other argument to stuff youself before the game and then go, yes that's what some people do, but part of going to a ball game is having a hotdog while watching the game or eating a pretzel. By forcing them to pay high prices the Astros are not 'benefiting' their fans, and thus you should vote con.

The main offensive argument remain that my opponent has is that the Astros offer 'cheaper' ticket prices to their fans. First of all, no one buy's those tickets. And even if people tried to, they're aren't that many offered at that price and they are soooooo far away from the action your not seeing much. You have to sit in the uppermost portion of the stadium at either end; the worst seats in any stadium. The Arizona Diamond backs offer the same tickets for only $5, and the only reason my opponents figures look so good is because the Astros have a stellar child ticket in the outfield for only $1 option. These tickets seem great untill you look that standing room only (that means you aren't even buying a seat) is $10. People are more willing to not buy a seat then buy those upper deck outfield states. Besides, the true messure of a Ball Park tickets cost should be looked at the what the entire stadium pays, the average ticket price. The Fan TMR index reports the Astros are 19/30 for the their average costs of ticket prices to their games. The Astros average ticket price is $28.73. 18 Teams in MLB have lower average ticket cost then the Astros, the Astros are even $1.09 over the league average of $26.64. (http://teammarketing.com.ismmedia.com...)
The Lowest end of cost are Marlins @ $19.06, Blue Jays @ $19.10, Rockies @ $19.50, Rangers @ $19.41, Reds @ $19.14 and the Rock bottom Pirates @ $15.39 and Diamondbacks @ $14.31. If the Astros really cared about they're fans they would offer better seats at a cheaper price, like the other 18 clubs. And since they're main argument to ban food and drink is to offer 'cheaper' seats, then shouldn't they be at the bottom of the list in ticket prices? Also, clubs like the Rangers that offer lower average ticket cost then the Astros, and have some the looses food restrictions in MLB: "There are no food restrictions" (http://www.chron.com...). I see no corrulation between allowing food into the park and offering fans cheaper ticket prices. Basically, the argument the Astros offer they're fans cheaper tickets is flawed because they only have one low priced level that hardly anyone buy in reality and even if a bunch of people did they'd sell out those tickets rapidly and be forced to buy more expesive tickets.
With no corrolation between the ticket prices and allowing food into the park, it seems the Astros are just withholding a ban on outside food and drink to be greedy and hurt they're fans, not benefiting them. The fact is that price gouging does not benefit their fans, not allowing bottled water hurts their fans, and when everyone else allows it they have to have a good reason to withhold it: their selfish. The Astros prices are not cheaper then any other ballparks, truthfully when examining the facts the only excuse the Astros are using if flawed. Since the Astros have no legitiment reason to not allow food into the ballpark, they have to. If they want to benefit they're fans. Vote Con, to Benefit the Astros fans by allowing outside food/drink into the park.
brian_eggleston

Pro

My opponent made some very good points in last argument, indeed, it is difficult to fault him.

However, he did write:

"Think about when you go on a plane, they don't force you to have they're plane food, you can buy food at the airport and take it on the plane."

Well, being used to flying business class (at the Company's expense) I was shocked and dismayed when I took a flight with United Airlines from Chicago to Tampa in Economy class. The flight was two and a half hours long but the grasping, tight-fisted con-merchants wanted me to pay for my booze and grub!

http://www.united.com...

It cost me $8 for a can of beer and a bag of crisps (chips). Bloody hell, what a flipping rip-off! But worse than that, some other passengers had brought their own food and drinks with them but the flight attendant told them that they weren't allowed to consume them on board.

This 'no outside food' policy seems to be a trend though, and not just in the aviation industry. For as long as I can remember, nobody has been allowed to bring their own food or drink to football (soccer) matches in Europe and it would appear that the Houston Astro's are the first baseball club to adopt this ploy in North America - no doubt the others will follow suit in due course.

Still, it is difficult to see how this benefits fans, apart from the reasons I have already outlined, but having said that, every cloud has a silver lining. I will never fly with United again (at least not in Economy class) and, similarly, the Astros' fans may be tempted to defect and support a better club instead. Alternatively, they may realise that motorsport events are much more exciting to attend than baseball matches (which are only played by schoolgirls here in England and are watched by absolutely no one except seedy old men in dirty overcoats) and they will spend their money on tickets for Nascar or Indy races instead.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Crazy4Steelers07

Con

Ok, obviously fans defecting is not benefical, vot Con.

On my airline point I was mostly speaking for US airline (Continental, Northwest) where it is common practice is America to allow people to take outside food (Namely McDonalds and Burger King) onto plans to munch on during the flights 'cause real airplane food here has become trash.

Exstend the Ticket Prices should be cheaper argument from the third round, it went dropped and thus goes uncontested. Fans are not benefited by being offered lower ticket prices in exchange for not having outside food/drink. Thus Vote Con.

At the point where my oppent didn't respond to my attacks on his contention, or my extention of my contention you have to move those to the con side.

Furthermore, my opponent, as Pro is this debate has to present a reason why "The Houston Astros benefit their fans by not allowing outside food/drink in their ballpark" you have to vote con. My opponent has no offense, and if anything you have to vote on Neg presumtion; along with the overwelming number of arguments I've won/have gone dropped by my opponent.

I thank my opponent for this exciting debate; it was fun.
brian_eggleston

Pro

Okay, I didn't want to mention it earlier because it seemed like it would make too much of an easy win for me, but my opponent has been fairly ruthless and posted some very good points so I feel I owe it to myself to take this opportunity to point out the obvious:

If the Astro's fans buy a hamburger from Wendy's or a bean burrito from Taco Bell or a Wagyu beef and teriyaki chicken bentobox from Benihana's or whatever, by the time they get to the ballpark it will be cold, stale and utterly inedible.

The whole reason people pay good money to eat food prepared in the ballpark is that it will be freshly cooked and piping hot.

Given the choice between suffering from acute nausea as the result of consuming a cold burger that is caked in congealed grease washed down with a tepid cup of coffee or a enjoying a "ginormous baked potato buried in cheese, loaded down with sweet pulled pork meat, doused in barbecue sauce, smothered in onions, and topped with jalape�o peppers" washed down with an ice cold beer, I know which I'd rather have and the Houston Astro's know that trips to the hospital with complaints of food poisoning are not beneficial to their fans which is why they do not permit food from outside to be taken into the ballpark.

Thanks for a very enjoyable debate, my Steelers-supporting opponent and thank you for reading and voting Pro my dear DDO pals!
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Wow, I won by 1 point. Close!
Posted by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
and - you did want to mention an arguement because it would give you an easy win, so you abusively hold on to it until the final speech when your oppenent can't respond? Yeah, that's WAY nicer.
Posted by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
Why does everyone care about grammar and spelling? isn't about the actual arguements that people present?
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Conduct: TIED
Spelling: PRO. CON was horrible, especially with "they're" and "their."
Arguments: PRO. Refuted most points.
SOURCES: TIED.
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
That was too funny for me to feel offended.
Posted by Crazy4Steelers07 8 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
You didn't affend me, I'm a pirate (yeah I said it) fan. I'm from Pittsburgh, that's where my sports allegence lies.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"Whoops! I didn't check my opponent's profile, it seems he lives in Texas and may be a Houston Astro's fan himself!"

Lol... I don't think that he would be offended.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Very creative of you, though that should have offended me.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Whoops! I didn't check my opponent's profile, it seems he lives in Texas and may be a Houston Astro's fan himself!
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
That was a pretty good argument by brian.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
Crazy4Steelers07brian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
Crazy4Steelers07brian_egglestonTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
Crazy4Steelers07brian_egglestonTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Crazy4Steelers07brian_egglestonTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Crazy4Steelers07brian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
Crazy4Steelers07brian_egglestonTied
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 
Vote Placed by Crazy4Steelers07 8 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
Crazy4Steelers07brian_egglestonTied
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:70