The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Under normal conditions, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,057 times Debate No: 4298
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (15)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

I stand in affirmation of the topic, "An average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip."

For those of you who don't know, this is the slogan for Lay's: "Betcha can't eat just one!"

Great, huh? Unfourtunatly, this company is lying to you.

Here are some definitions for the round (dictionary.com):

Can: to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to

Average: typical; common; ordinary

First off, there are no chemicals in Lay's that make it hard to eat just one. Potatoes, nor salt, are phyiscal addicting. Therefore, there is nothing in the potato chip that makes your body addicted to the chips nor even compels you to eat more.

Secondly, a person could easily take a chip, eat it, and move on with their day. People have too much to be worried about to be eating potato chips. Also, most people are concered with their health, so they would only eat one to get the taste and not the calories.

Finally, there are other things they can be snacking on. If the person is hungry, there are pretzels, crackers, and other types of chips that are not potato like Cheetos. There's no reason a person can't eat those instead of Lay's.

Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
MoonDragon613

Con

CAN an average person under normal conditions eat just one Lay's potato chip?

Mr. Pluto said CAN is "have the ability, power, or skill to". I'll accept this simple and popular definition. And so let's see what happens when an Average person under Normal conditions undergo after opening a Lay's potato chip bag.

Bob is an Average person. He's either hungry or has a craving for potato chips. After all, if we're dealing with normal conditions, what's a more normal condition that's a prerequisite for opening a potato chip bag?

Now Bob reaches his hand in, and grabs one potato chip, brings it to his mouth, and eats it.

Now at this point, under Normal Conditions, we would expect Bob to eat another Lay's potato chip at some point in his life. For Bob to never ever eat another Lay's potato chip, one of the following conditions must be met.

1. Bob develops a severe addiction to the scent of Lay's potato chips and begins to sneeze violently whenever a Lay's potato chip begins approaching his mouth.
2. Bob hates the taste of the chip the experience is embedded into his memory and thus preventing him from ever forgetting his hatred of Lay's potato chips.
3. Bob destroys all Lay's potato chips in existence and the Lay's potato chip formula and the Lay's company.
4. Bob dies immediately.
5. Bob loses the ability to digest food except intravenously.
6. Bob immediately becomes an exceptionally devout Buddhist and avoids all foods that might have been cooked in animal oil.
7. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Unfortunately none of these are what you would call "normal conditions". Under Normal Conditions, Bob cannot just eat one Lay's potato chip. At some point in his life, he'll become hungry and run across another bag of Lay's potato chips. In fact, it is extremely likely he'll eat another Lay's potato chip right after he eats the first one. So here's my challenge, for Mr. Pluto, show me this normal condition under which Bob can eat just one Lay's potato chip.

Because I've just shown that there IS NO normal condition under which an average Bob can eat just one Lay's potato chip for the duration of his life.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

My opponent makes one fatal flaw in his argument. The accepted definition of 'can' in this debate is "to be able to." Therefore, my opponent's argument is moot because it does not negate the physical ability to eat one potato chip.

I will explain further:

Let's take Bob. Bob eats the potato chip. Now he can eat another one, or move on. Although Bob may come across another Lay's potato chip later in his life, he has the ability to refuse it. There are no conditions that prevent him from doing this, such as physically or mentally addicting chemicals in the chips. All it takes is a simple 'no.'

Because of this reason, my argument still stands, my opponent's argument does not negate the resolution, and you must vote PRO.
MoonDragon613

Con

Unfortunately, I did not make a fatal flaw. My opponent did, in his poorly drafted resolution.

"UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip"
is the resolution. The resolution my opponent is trying to argue is "An average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip". The phrase under normal conditions changes the nature of the resolution drastically, and thus makes my opponent's rebuttal moot.

Notice how I've explicitly used HIS OWN definition of the word "CAN" in my first round of arguments, because using HIS, not my definition, I've already shown that Under Normal Conditions, as the round spells out, an Average person CANNOT eat just one Lay's potato chip.

Now to address my opponent's "refutation" as well as expand with new argumentation.

"There are no conditions that prevent him from doing this, such as physically or mentally addicting chemicals in the chips. All it takes is a simple 'no.'"

Let's be realistic for a second, who here in the audience plays video games? There are no addicting chemicals in World of Warcraft is there? Does the game reach out with physical hands to force people to play? But yet nevertheless there are millions of people out there who just CANNOT put down that mouse.

So let's once again examine Bob who has opened a bag and ate one Lay's potato chip. After eating one Lay's potato chip
a. There is peer pressure. After all, who goes around eating only one potato chip in a bag? That's just weird.

b. There is sunk cost pressure. Have you ever finished something you ordered, even when you were full or even when it wasn't particularly good? Have you ever sat and finished a movie you didn't particularly like just because you bought the movie ticket? We are pressured, psychologically, to finish what we started.

c. Gluttony. True, Lay's might not be addicting per say ... but there is no doubt that a combination of oil, salt, and potato makes Lay's appealing in terms of taste. The taste generates the desire to take another potato chip, thus a third pressure upon the individual.

--------
Now ... Granted, there might exist people who can resist peer pressure, sunk cost pressure, and gluttony simultaneously. But that's not the debate resolution is it? The amount of will power required to resist these three pressures simultaneously is beyond the ABILITY, POWER OR SKILL of the AVERAGE person under NORMAL conditions. And therefore, I have already won this debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

Yet again, my opponent fails to realize what the resolution is asking.

As for the 'Under normal conditions' part, the reason that is in there is because, in a drastic situation like starvation, you are not going to be able to put that chip down. My opponent misinterprets that.

My opponent continually makes the mistake of using the mentality of 'likely.' Although it is completly reasonable to believe it is likely that Bob will eat another chip, that is not the resolution. It is if he is CAPABLE of eating just one chip. And that he is.

He then counters my addiction argument by saying people are addicted to WoW. I fail to see how that negates anything in the resolution. He just gave us a simple fact about WoW. He did nothing to tie it to potato chips, and thus I must ask this:

Let's be realistic for a second: who in the audience watched High School Musical? There are no addicting chemicals in HSM2 are there? People watch this movie and hate it.

That could be an equivelent argument with my opponent. WoW has no link to potato chips, nor did he prove that people are even PHYSICALLY addicted to it. Some things are addicting, some things aren't. Chips aren't.

PLUS, I've already pre-countered that argument, which my opponent did not respond to. I said that there are other things a person can snack on. Why not pretzels, Cheetos, and Fritos? They're all good.

Let's go on to his weird lettered list now.

A. He says there is peer pressure, but he does not adequetly explain this. It is simply a two sentence argument asking a question. I will respond to the general idea of this argument.

First, I don't know about any times that I, nor my friends, have been pressured to eat potato chips. Most people eat them by themselves, anyway. Even if they were, there are plently of other items to satisfy their crave. Peer pressure simply does not mean that they definatly are going to eat more than one potato chip.

B. My opponent says that we are physically addicted to finishing what we started. He fails any proof of this argument and does not explain it at all. All he says is a general statement.

Thus, I will say this: No to all of his questions, and no, you don't get addicted. Now they are equally valid arguments on both sides, and this argument is a wash.

C. My opponent's last argument is just that they are appealing. ONCE AGAIN, just because it is likely, that does not mean he does not have the will-power to refuse that. Any human being capable of eating a potato chip is equally saying, 'no.' And again, if he really wants to eat something salty, he is perfectly capable of getting something else that is salty to eat.

I win this debate because my opponent fails to realize what the resolution is asking, and thus cannot respond to my arguments. The resolution is asking if Bob is CAPABLE of eating one potato chip. CON fails to realize this and implements his own resolution, 'Under normal conditions, an average person is likely to eat more than one potato chip.' There is a world of difference between 'can' and 'likely.' Unfourtantly for my opponent, these worlds are the same, making his arguments moot.

So, I will say the same thing as all other rounds: An average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip. My opponent presents no empiracal evidence nor logical reason why a person cannot eat just one.

I have proved my opponent's interpretation wrong, and I see nothing but a PRO vote.
MoonDragon613

Con

"None so blind as those who will not see"

Have you ever asked yourself why America is so infested with lawyers? It's because the English language is so interestingly vague. When you use words such as "normal", "average" and "CAN", it's the same as opening Pandora's Box.

The debate has pretty much boiled down to the definition of the word CAN. And once again, i will throw my opponent's definition back at him.

"Can: to be able to; have the ability, power or skill to"

Let's think about those 3 words, ability, power or skill.

Can I juggle 5 different balls simultaneously? No, because I don't have the hand eye coordination.

Can I run a 50 meter dash in 10 seconds? No, because I don't have the agility and leg muscles.

Can I kick a nicotine addiction without a nicotine patch? No, because I don't have the willpower required.

When my opponent brought up "Potatoes, nor salt, are physically addicting" he admits that will power is in deed an ability, power or skill that determines whether or not you Can or Cannot perform a task.

So does the average person under normal conditions have the willpower to eat One and Only one potato chip?

I spent most of this debate providing both examples and reasons why the average person under normal conditions DOES NOT have the willpower to resist the temptation to eat that second potato chip.

Gluttony, peer pressure, forgetfulness, and my favorite, sunk pressure cost. And that's why you Cannot just eat one potato chip. If you don't believe me, give it a try. You can vote against me after your dead, if you never eat another Lay's potato chip for the rest of your life.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
RES THIS THREAD.

Pro, many of your arguments seem to imply that the person would eat NO potato chips, atleast relative to MoonDragon613's arguments.

SORRY BOUT THE RES GUAYS.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
I wanted to diversify. Difficult case to argue, but you're right. Ultimately the entire life part was extraneous, and it would've made the debate less interesting if I carried it over to the final round.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Though I must say to CON that the interpretation of the topic as eating a lay in an entire life seemed extraneous and unnecessary. You had a perfectly good argument, in which you did not need to use semantics.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
"there are no chemicals in Lay's that make it hard to eat just one"

I beg to differ...

But anyways, while PRO had a good argument, CON's was better, taking a stance of determinism.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I was always under the impression that it was because we mostly rely on a jury system. :D
Posted by elphaba1389 9 years ago
elphaba1389
wow, i would take this debate if it wasn't such a wast of my time. But good theory, and this should be fun to debate just for kicks. =)
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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 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: Counter Lakeville votebomb
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 6 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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 m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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 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 Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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 Hushed 8 years ago
Hushed
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Vol 9 years ago
Vol
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Pluto2493MoonDragon613Tied
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:30