The Instigator
bagon475
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mb852
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

should people be allowed to sue fastfood restaurants

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
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,022 times Debate No: 15852
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

bagon475

Con

I do not believe that people should sue fast food restaurants. Lets start with the two reasons why people should not have the capability to sue fast food rerstaurants: 1) People sue because they eat a hamburger and get fat. 2) There is something in their food and they get disgusted. For those who gain weight go to weight loss programs, yet they don't lose weight. So instead of those suing fast food restaurants because they got fat, sue the weight loss programs because the program did not work and you spent alot of money to do that. And for those who want to sue fast food because they had something in your drink, go inside and ask them for annother one plain and simple.
mb852

Pro

People absolutely should be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants. I agree that some lawsuits are frivolous, but this does not mean that you take away people's right to sue fast-food restaurants because they will need that right when they have a legitimate suit to bring.
Debate Round No. 1
bagon475

Con

My opponent said that people should have the right to sue fastfood restaurants. First off, what is the point if you and many people sue fast food restaurants and you lose consistently? Second off, if you need to point the finger, point it at diet programs. Some diet programs do not help you lose weight. If you spend all of this money on a program that doesn't even work, then you should try your best to at least to get your money back. Finally, is it actually fast food that makes people fat? I can eat 3 double cheeseburgers, 1 large fry, and a large drink and still weigh 110 pounds. It is how active you are that also puts a factor on if you gain weight. So if that is the case then it is not mcdonalds fault so don't be annoying and sue someone that is providing what you want.
mb852

Pro

You are going off topic...

The question you set forth is "should people be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants?"...

You ask "what is the point if you and many people sue fast-food restaurants and you lose consistently?"- The point is that we are exercising our FREEDOM to use the court system, which is supported by our tax dollars, to hold a party accountable that we believe has wronged us...and what evidence do you have that people are filing all these pointless suits and losing? You said that I and "many people" sue fast-food restaurants...I've never done so...I'll assume you were just making a hypothetical.

You then go off topic into "if you need to point the finger"- I'm not pointing a finger...you are...at fat people. (this whole thing about diets is off topic and irrelevant)

Finally you end with "it is not mcdonalds fault so don't be annoying and sue someone that is providing what you want."- I agree that people should not file annoying or frivolous lawsuits, however that is very different than saying people should not be ALLOWED to bring lawsuits against fast-food restaurants. Someone can think that tenants shouldn't be allowed to sue their landlords because most of their suits are frivolous, but we'd all agree that a tenant's right to sue their landlord should not be taken away from them for the simple fact that not all tenants file frivolous suits.

Bottom line- People SHOULD be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants. For example, what if you slip on a broken tile in a fast food restaurant and break your arm...don't you want to be ALLOWED to sue that restaurant for the damage they have caused you (medical bills, pain and suffering)?
Debate Round No. 2
bagon475

Con

My opponent says that people should be able to exercise the right to sue restaurants. He also said that they shouldn't be suing them frivously. Yet people do that. They sue McDonalds and they lose. So they sue them again and they lose, and again, and again, yet they lose. If that does not annoy you then what does? Also my opponent said that if you slipped and broke your leg at a fastfood restaurant, you would sue them to get all of your medical bills paid. That statement is out of order. If you slip, that is your own fault. It is ridiculous to sue someone for slipping at their property. That is like saying I will sue someone for tackling me and breaking my arm at a football game. Things like that happen and it gets annoying when you get sued for the same thing for 6 years. The only people happy are the lawyers that get paid for this and then you have to pay court cost if you lose so stop wasting your money and vote for Con.
mb852

Pro

I'll repeat:

he question you set forth is "should people be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants?"...

You ask "what is the point if you and many people sue fast-food restaurants and you lose consistently?"- The point is that we are exercising our FREEDOM to use the court system, which is supported by our tax dollars, to hold a party accountable that we believe has wronged us...and what evidence do you have that people are filing all these pointless suits and losing? You said that I and "many people" sue fast-food restaurants...I've never done so...I'll assume you were just making a hypothetical.

You then go off topic into "if you need to point the finger"- I'm not pointing a finger...you are...at fat people. (this whole thing about diets is off topic and irrelevant)

Finally you end with "it is not mcdonalds fault so don't be annoying and sue someone that is providing what you want."- I agree that people should not file annoying or frivolous lawsuits, however that is very different than saying people should not be ALLOWED to bring lawsuits against fast-food restaurants. Someone can think that tenants shouldn't be allowed to sue their landlords because most of their suits are frivolous, but we'd all agree that a tenant's right to sue their landlord should not be taken away from them for the simple fact that not all tenants file frivolous suits.

Bottom line- People SHOULD be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants. For example, what if you slip on a broken tile in a fast food restaurant and break your arm...don't you want to be ALLOWED to sue that restaurant for the damage they have caused you (medical bills, pain and suffering)?

To answer your latest argument:

Saying that people shouldn't sue frivolously and TAKING THAT RIGHT away from them are two very very different things....

My point about someone slipping was that if you slip AT THE FAULT OF THE RESTAURANT...like a said in my example, "if you slip on a broken tile"...the broken tile is the fault of the establishment...they have to, by law, put up a sign or in some way make the patrons aware of the danger on their property.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bagon475 5 years ago
bagon475
This was my first debate. I did not know what to expect.
Posted by duckiejen23 5 years ago
duckiejen23
@bagon475: prior to asserting blanket statements regarding who should be allowed to sue whom, it is important the you research the the intricacies of McDonald's and other fast food cases you are referring to. As someone entrenched in the legal system, I assure you that these suits have far more to do with justice than a simple assertion of "you're making me fat". As a brief example, I'm sure you have heard of the woman who was given three million dollars for spilling McDonald's coffee on herself. What you do not know is that McDonald's was given several warnings that their coffee temperature being above the approved safe temperatures, the woman tried to settle for $700 for Medicare expenses that were not reimbursed, and after McDonald's refused, they were sued. The punitive award of 3 million was a mere 3 days worth of McDonald's coffee sales which is indicative of a slap on the wrist rather than an actual reward. The legal system is vast. I highly suggest you do your research prior to referencing cases.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
bagon475mb852Tied
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: Con has a much too vague resolution, it should have been extended to similar - it is just to hold the restaurants responsible for causing weight gain.
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 5 years ago
DylanAsdale
bagon475mb852Tied
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: It's like Pro said. The fact that frivolous lawsuits exist isn't even an issue of contention, but that has nothing to do with the right to seek legal recourse for issues that are not frivolous. If that right was removed, fast food restaurants would have the right to intentionally poison your food without punishment. Reductio ad absurdum. Pro has carried the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
bagon475mb852Tied
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: PRO gives a hypothetical example of a case where one should sue a fast food restaurant, for example if a tile is broken. CON offers no rebuttal. Thus, Pro shows why it is one's right to sue a fast food and wins.