is Mcdonalds THAT bad?
Debate Rounds (3)
I would like to to start off by thanking my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. I will be arguing the side of why people see MC Donalds as unhealthy and why it is "really that bad".
"I was going to McDonald's and Taco Bell every day. The kids behind the counter knew me - it wouldn't even faze them. Or I'd sit up at Denny's or Big Boy and just eat by myself. It was sad. I got so heavy that people started to not recognize me."
1. Healthy: indicative of, conducive to, or promoting good health.
2.Diet: the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats.
3. Nutrition: the process of providing or obtaining the food necessary for health and growth.
4. Fast Food: food that can be prepared quickly and easily and is sold in restaurants and snack bars as a quick meal or to be taken out.
5. Restaurant: a place where people pay to sit and eat meals that are cooked and served on the premises.
6. McDonald's is the world's largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, serving around 68 million customers daily in 119 countries across 35,000 outlets.
"Contention 1: Simply put McDonald s is just too unhealthy.
Sub Point A: The nutritional information about the foods McDonald's executives expects it's customers to eat is anything but healthy. Surprisingly only a mere seven number of items on the McDonald"s menu contain no sugar. The foods with sugar of course aren't that healthy either as the McCafe fruit smoothie has more sugar per serving than a Coke. A fruit smoothie, something you would expect to be good for you is just as bad as gulping down a coke, just let the process for a moment. McDonald"s fruit-and-maple oatmeal has as much sugar as a bag of M&Ms. Shockingly the items on the menu which appear healthier than others may be just as bad for customers. The majority of McDonald"s are actually more fattening than its hamburger, only two have less calories than a burger. Now even then salads only make up a mere 2%"3% of the fast food chain"s U.S. restaurant sales, which shows us the majority of customers don't go into McDonald's intending to attempt to eat healthy. A McWrap, which McDonald"s includes on its menue of healthy choices, has 1,280 milligrams of sodium, more than half of what an adult should consume in an entire day. The unhealthiest item on the McDonald"s menu is the "Big Breakfast with Hotcakes and Large Size Biscuit." It has a whopping 1,150 calories, 60 grams of fat, 20 grams of saturated fat, 17 grams of sugar, 575 milligrams of cholesterol, 116 grams of carbohydrates, and 2,260 grams of sodium. My favorite statistic from my research is the fact a person would need to walk for seven hours straight to burn off a super-sized Coke, fries, and Big Mac.
Subpoint B: McDonald's ingredients and methods of preparing it's meals are down right disgusting.
Before 2012 McDonald's would treat scrap meat with ammonium hydroxide which creates a pink goo (as seen above) that is used to extend meat products, such as chicken and beef, to kill bacteria (it is also used in fertilizers and household cleaners). In 2012 after the "pink meat" scandal McDonald"s confirmed it stopped using ammonium hydroxide. However don't let that fool you as McDonald's in no way has put an end to it's unorthedox methods of prepairing food. McDonald"s chicken is composed primarily of fat, with some blood vessels and nerves present in the meat.A McDonald"s strawberry milkshake contains about 50 chemicals that are used to imitate the flavor of strawberries, I mean just how hard is it to use all natural strawberries? The McWrap I spoke about earlier has 121 ingredients, including trans fats and chemicals on the FDA watch list. McDonald"s Big Mac has 18 separate additives, and the cheeseburger has about 17 separate additives. Additives are present in almost everything on the menu, including the grilled chicken and salads. McDonald"s uses propylene glycol in its sauces, glazes, and hotcakes. It is a "less toxic" version of ethylene glycol, which is a dangerous antifreeze. Its purpose is to prevent products from becoming too solid. A common additive in McDonald"s fast food is calcium silicate, which is a white powder often used to prevent bricks, roof tiles, and cement from caking.Azodicarbonamide, an odorless synthetic chemical mostly used in the production of foamed plastics, is also used in McDonald"s buns as a flour-bleaching agent.
Contention 2: McDonalds takes advantage of advertising
Subpoint A: McDonalds is widely known for taking advantage of children in order to produce more revenue. Approximately 9 out of 10 American children eat at a McDonald"s restaurant every month, that's 90% of American children eating this disgusting food at the very least once a month.Approximately 96% of American school children can identify Ronald McDonald. The only other fictional character that kids recognize more is Santa Claus! Rather than having Santa bring presents down the chimney once a year, children atleast once a month recieve McDonalds and the consequences that come with eating it's food. McDonald"s is the largest distribution of toys in the world. Each year, it distributes 1.4 billion toys worldwide, which is more than Hasbro and Mattel, basically bribing children into asking their parent to visit. McDonald"s operates more playgrounds than any other private entity in the United States. In 2011, McDonald"s tried to make the Happy Meals more healthful for kids by adding apples to every package while removing the caramel sauce and reducing the French fry offering from 2.4 oz. to 1.1 oz. However, the meals still round out to about 600 calories, which experts say is still too much for small children. Additionally, researchers note that they are worried that the company is "health washing" kids by rebranding themselves as "healthy," when they are actually just "less unhealthy."Now back to the additives I spoke about earlier in the Big Mac. Researchers have found that children who eat those certain additives are more likely to be overactive, impulsive, and unable to concentrate. In 2008 a4-year-old girl found a piece of metal about an inch long in her McDonald"s hamburger. Health officials later determined that it was part of a veterinary needle or syringe from a packing plant in Ohio, most likely from an animal that was vaccinated before it was slaughtered. The luck discoveries continue as in 2009, a 7-year-old girl in Switzerland found a condom in her French fries. Local police tried to determine if the condom posed a health risk. At the time of the story, McDonald"s declined to comment. Good luck explaining that one mom.
Sub Point B: McDonalds overall is a coperation that takes advantage of it customers and popularity. I will list off some of McDonald's "greatest achievements" and tie these statistics back to the section about the unhealthiness and just take a moment to imagine the consequences.McDonald"s has sold well over 100 billion hamburgers.In the United States alone, people eat over 1 billion pounds of beef at McDonald"s in a year, which is 5" million head of cattle.McDonald"s serves about 9 million pounds of fries per day.M cDonalds Corporation sells over 1 billion cups of coffee each year around the world. It sells 500 million cups a day in the U.S. alone. McDonald"s opens a new restaurant every four hours. McDonald"s is the nation"s largest purchaser of beef, pork, and potatoes. It is the second largest purchaser of chicken. McDonald"s Corporation is the largest owner of retail property in the world. There are about 35,429 McDonald"s worldwide. Each year, McDonald"s buys 3.4 billion pounds of potatoes. Now this one's funny as McDonalds has their own term for overweight customers calling them "heavy users", as if it were a drug they were addicted to. Every day, McDonald"s feeds it disgusting meals to over 68 million people. The wealth gap between McDonald"s CEOs and its workers has doubled over the last 10 years, showing McDonald's true corperate greed. Too finish it off, my favorite quote... "More people recognize McDonald"s golden arches than they do the Catholic cross."
The only statstical evidence I was able find that argues your side of the case is that McDonald"s buys 54 million pounds of fresh apples a year. McDonald's as I have proven is just not good for you, and people are over consuming the disgusting chemical creations that McDonald's calls food.
unrecognisable picture of santa . Oh and 5 million head of cattle in my country McDonalds just buys the meat they do not own the farms of the people who kill him. And with the pay gap a lot of American companies pay less than that and with rest of your words I do not believe they have any damage against me and you just said them to sound grander
I would like to start off my rebuttal by thanking my opponent for his response to my opening remarks.
"Good health is not something we can buy. However, it can be an extremely valuable savings account."
-Anne Wilson Schaef
Counter Argument 1: My opponents opening remarks are detrimental to his whole argument. He is claiming that McDonald's unhealthy practices are justifiable in his mind because other restaurants such as "KFC", "Wendy's" and "Subway" also take part in these sickening practices, yet my counter part provides no evidence of these companies taking part in such practices. Never the less, even if such claims are true, how other companies choose to handle their business is irrelevant to a debate questioning McDonald's. Therefore this is an unreasonable justification. My opponent the claims McDonald's is victim to this criticism due to the fact it is a corporation, which I will not dispute as this actually strengthens my case. First off it is important to note my opponent seemed to forget that all the other restaurants he pointed to for comparison are also large corporations. "McDonald"s company brand value is over US$85 billion. Starbucks is the second ranked fast food outlet, at an estimated brand value of $25 billion. Subway ($21 billion), KFC ($12 billion), Pizza Hut ($8 billion), Chipotle ($7 billion), Tim Hortons ($4 billion), Panera ($2.8 billion), Wendy"s ($2.7 billion), and Burger King ($2.6 billion) round out the top 10." My opponent claims that it is just simply "not McDonald's fault" and that they should not be held responsible for the choices they make, which is ridiculous. McDonald's chooses to use these harmful chemicals and therefore should expect criticism from the public regarding their questionable practices, especially considering the fact they are the world's largest fast food chain. in the world.
Counter Argument 2: My opponent claims that "if you are going to eat every item on a restruan menu of course you will get sick I bet that if you tried every item on the subway menu you would end up just as unhealthy if not worse". This claim of course is supported by simple logic, but the simple fact is that the great majority of McDonald's customers do not order every last item on the menu, yet they still experience the negative effects of the food. To prove this I will point to the infamous documentary "Super Size Me" where a man goes a while month eating only McDonald s for the three meals of the day. He does not order every item off the menu and is the perfect example for how unhealthy the food truly is. To deny this fact only proves ignorance (http://www.snagfilms.com...). It is also noteworthy that you don't even have to eat the food to experience the negative effects of the food. In 1994 Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's and won after experiencing third degree burns after she spilt her coffee on herself by accident.
Counter Argument 3: (I would like to start off by just leaving a note for my opponent that in an actual NFL debate it is unprofessional and frowned upon to point to personal experience's as evidence, try to go more fact based. In an NFL debate you would lose point.) My opponent claims that his friend who works for McDonald's in their processing plant in Tegel no loner uses the pink sludge, but as I pointed out previously in my opening after disusing this very issue, they put an end to this practice after they were caught red handed in 2012. Never the less you can't deny the fact that unhealthy chemical are added to McDonald's products, all it takes it a read through of the McDonald nutrient guide which I cited in the comment section of this debate.
Counter Argument 4: (Another important note, you can't make false claims on a statistic such as that without evidence to back it up) Whether or not they recognize Santa is completely irrelevant, the statistic clearly states "Approximately 96% of American school children can identify Ronald McDonald. The only other fictional character that kids recognize more is Santa Claus." which implies it is above 96% of kids.
Counter Arguement 5: My opponent claims there is a pay gap between American employees and of employees around the world, that somehow American employees get payed less than other countries around the world. Most would argue it is opposite away around, yet that still does not dismiss the fact they are never the less underpaid. This is a chart of the average salary of the different levels of McDonalds employees.
(If you can't read the tale the link is http://www.glassdoor.com...)
That also does not change the fact "Twenty years ago, at McDonald's, theCEO's compensation was about 230 times that of a full-time worker paid the federal minimum wage. The $8.75 million that Thompson's predecessor as CEO, Skinner, made last year was 580 times, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
which side by sides both of these and the meatball sub comes worse and subway claims to be the healthy option I do not believe McDonald's actions are justified but everything they do is exaggerated by everyone and when subway adds bleach to there ingredients people don't even bother to say anything people are attacking McDonald's exaggerating to make them sound McDonald's isn't that bad look at the health ratings on this link
Mcdonalds is a B why do people think McDonald's is so bad why can't they just ignore them like they do everyone else I challenge my opponent to read this and then anwser my question
I would like to start off my final rebuttal and closing argument by thanking my opponent for such a great debate on a very controversial issue.
Counter Argument 6: My opponent believes that comparing McDonald's to other fast food chains is relevant, yet he doesn't explain why. How one company conducts itself does not determine the quality of another, nor is it relevant to the topic of this debate on whether or not McDonald's is really all that bad. My opponent is simply redefining the debate topic as whether or not McDonald's is as bad as Subway. I would also like to point out the illegitimacy of the source my opponent provided. According to the numbers from the Subway website, the numbers provided in this source of his do not reflect the numbers coming directly from Subway themselves. (http://www.subway.com...) We also see inconsistency in the nutritional information on the Big Mac as well. (http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com...)
Now perhaps the area my opponent was lacking in the most is by what factor are we determining which item is healthier. In many ways the Meatball Marinara Sandwich is much healthier than the Big Mac, and by some factors it is not. According to the source my opponent provided the most important factors are which meal " has fewer calories, less fat, more protein, and more fiber". The Meatball Marinara destroys the Big Mac in every category except protein where it has only 1 less gram of fat than the Big Mac. Most people would argue Calories and Fat are the most important category, and here we see a difference of 60 calories and a difference of 10 grams less fat in the Meatball Marinara Sandwich. It is also important to consider that Dietary values are not the only factor in what determines whether or not an item is healthy. It also hinders the ingredients in is composed of, which as I pointed out in my open statement are absolutely horrific. Again "McDonald"s Big Mac has 18 separate additives". I would also like to note Subway does not claim they are the healthier option, consumers assume that this is so.
Counter Argument 7: My opponent admits in plain English that he "[does] not believe McDonald's actions are justified". My opponent is basically admitting defeat as his whole argument is based on the justifications of McDonald's due to the actions of other companies as we saw in my Counter Arguments 1 and 6 and his opening statement. My opponent then , quite ironically, points once again to Subway in order to claim McDonald's practices are justified. Whether or not Subway bleaches their meats is irrelevant, and once again you provide no evidence that such practices are taking place in Subway. This is not a debate on Subway vs. McDonald's or whether or not their actions are justifiable.
Counter Argument 8: My opponent claims that people over exaggerate about McDonald's practices in order to vilify this major corporation, which is just simply untrue. I disproved this claim of my opponent in contention 1 of my opening statement, where I talk about the nutritional information and how it proves McDonald's executives expects it's customers to eat food that is anything but healthy. I would rather not go around in circles and once again prove McDonald's practices are repulsive, rather I direct you to re-read my first contention in my opening argument.
Counter Argument 9: Once again my opponent provides and illegitimate source in order to claim "McDonald's isn't that bad [just] look at the health ratings". Now I would like to debunk this claim as it is quite obvious it is illegitimate. I would like to first note that this site which my opponent provided is based out of New Jersey, which is important because it entails that these restaurants must abide by the rules put in place by Department of Health. The department of Health only provide grades of an A,B, or C, yet according to this site they are receiving B+'s, C+'s, D's, and F's which are grades that are not include on the Department of Health's grading scale. It is also important to note that grades are given on an individual basis to each restaurant, and there is no one rating provided to the McDonald's corporation. To say one individual restaurant's grade reflects an entire corporation is preposterous.
Now if we are to take this grade of a B as legitimate, it is actually harming your case. "A restaurant’s score depends on how well it follows City and State food safety requirements. Inspectors check for food handling, food temperature, personal hygiene, facility and equipment maintenance and vermin control. Each violation earns a certain number of points. At the end of the inspection, the inspector totals the points and this number is the restaurant’s inspection score; the lower the score, the better." Restaurants are graded on three categories. "• A public health hazard, such as failing to keep food at the right temperature, triggers a minimum of 7 points. If the violation can’t be corrected before the inspection ends, the Health Department may close the restaurant until it’s fixed. • A critical violation, for example, serving raw food such as a salad without properly washing it first, carries a minimum of 5 points. • A general violation, such as not properly sanitizing cooking utensils, receives at least 2 points. Inspectors assign additional points to reflect the extent of the violation. A violation’s condition level can range from 1 (least extensive) to 5 (most extensive). For example, the presence of one contaminated food item is a condition level 1 violation, generating 7 points. Four or more contaminated food items is a condition level 4 violation, resulting in 10 points. " Now this is relevant because "a restaurant has two chances to earn an A in every inspection cycle." which implies that on two occasions they failed one if not more of these requirements in order to receive the grade of a B.
Contention 10: (answering my Opponent's question): (before I start, I would like to point out the fact by opponent address that McDonald's has a significant number ill practices by asking why people are unable to ignore them) The reason people do not ignore McDonald's is because of the rise in obesity on the global scale, along with the negative effects that come with it, and fast food restaurant play a significant roll in this spread. Also the fact with all these harmful chemicals mixed together that McDonald's refers to as their food, it is important to make these practices publicly know as McDonald's executives try to pull a sheet over it's customers heads and get away with these practices.
This fun little diagram shows the most obese nations in the world.
Now I would like to take a look at the nations with the highest level of diabetics and we will see the connection between obesity and the harmful consequences.
Closing argument: I would like to start my closing argument by thanking my opponent for a great debate. I have proved without a doubt that McDonald's practice's really are that bad and have proved this with structured evidence. However my opponent on the other hand was off topic on a number of occasions and provided little evidence to support his claim. The evidence my opponent did provide were illegitimate as I have proved above. I hope you readers agree after reading that McDonald's really is that bad. I will be answering questions in the comments. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DarthKirones 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Neither pro or con was disrespectful to each other, nor was there any forfeits on either side. Arguments: Con's arguments were well structured and logical , while Pro seemed all over the place, and Pro's arguments were based on opinion, not fact. S&G: Con used periods and used capitalization correctly, Pro did not. Sources: Con used more and more reliable sources, and while pro did use two sources in round three, I feel like Pro's main sources are his beliefs, not reliable sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.