The Instigator
98583
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

should teens eat fast food?

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...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 732 times Debate No: 54340
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

98583

Con

Should Teens eat more or less fast food? one round only.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate.

The resolution is clear: Should teens eat fast food?

Since the instigator is in the Con position, I will assume that means that they are against teens eating fast food. I am in the Pro position, therefore, I am for teens eating fast food. I will approach this in the context that we are discussing American teens and the American fast food industry.

I will begin by justifying my position on the resolution at hand, followed by responding to the question posed by my opponent in round 1.

I. Legality

The question raised is: Should teens eat fast food? In terms of legality, they certainly aren't breaking any laws if they do. In America, we have the freedom to eat what we please as long as it remains in line with current laws. Nowhere does it state that eating fast food is against the law. Therefore, there is nothing in place to stop teens from practicing the freedoms that come with living in this country.

II. Health

The only major argument my opponent could possibly have (if they would have presented one in the first place), would be that fast food is unhealthy and therefore should not be consumed by teenagers. Unfortunately, this holds no ground in this debate. The reason is because there are many things which are unhealthy and yet perfectly suitable for consumption. Just because something is edible does not mean that it is necessarily beneficial, but ultimately, there are no rules against eating what we please aside from relative rules that we might place on ourselves. For instance, someone might promise to not eat fast food because they are on a diet. In that example, it is probably best for them to stick to their word and not eat fast food. But in the case of this resolution and first round, there are no specific examples presented by my opponent. Therefore there is no justified reason as to why teenagers should not eat fast food. My opponent failed to present any case.

Furthermore, what right does one individual have to tell another individual what they should or should not eat? Yes, we have freedom of speech so sure they can share that opinion. But nowhere in America does someone have the legal grounds to force someone to not eat fast food short of a doctors or dieticians warning against doing so. Perhaps if we were discussing malnourished babies or children unable to make knowledgeable decisions on their own while also in serious health risks but aside from those specific cases it is unheard of for anyone aside from perhaps parents or the two professionals listed above to ever demand that a teenager not eat fast food. Even if they do demand such things, they still have no legal grounds to force such limitations on an individuals diet or eating preferences.

III. Starvation & Food deserts

Food deserts are defined as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. [1]

In many rural towns and urban neighborhoods, it is not uncommon to find that the options available for food are not the most diverse. What is usually the issue is that many of these communities do not have access to supermarkets or grocery stores that offer a wide range of foods, but rather find themselves in an area where only convenience stores and fast food restaurants are the options for food sources. Furthermore, with the low prices that are common in these fast food and convenience stores they often times serve as the only places that individuals living in poverty or poor families can afford to eat at.

An example of this wpi;d be a Seattle nonprofit which surveyed more than 200 low-income women and found that they know how to cook healthy food — they just lack access. [2] It's not only about how much an individual meal costs, but about having a grocery store in your area, the time and transportation to shop there, and the time to cook. Many people don't have this ability and are stuck with only options such as fast food chains and nearby convenience stores. The study itself is fascinating and I highly recommend reading the entire article to fully understand how important this factor is.

With is being known that many people can't afford anything better than fast food due to either living in a food desert or simply being unable to afford it, the question now becomes one of starvation. Should they NOT eat fast food and then starve to death due to their being no other real options in their community? I think not. Although eating fast food on a regular basis has been shown to increase the risk of health issues, it is still more reasonable than simply eating nothing, since their are no other options, and then starving to death. In the case of certain lower class families and individuals, eating fast food is literally a choice between life and death. We have to eat to survive, to sustain our bodies, and without doing so, we will surely starve to death. [3]

[1] http://apps.ams.usda.gov...
[2] http://grist.org...
[3] http://www.ask.com...

Response to question in R1

The question in round one is: Should teens eat more or less fast food?

The issue with responding to this question is that there are no linked studies or claims in terms of current levels or measurements of how many teens eat fast food. When a question with 'more' or 'less' is involved, there is usually a basis for that question or a foundation upon which we can then compare what 'more' or 'less' would entail. But there is no basis in this question, there is no data for me to respond or even analyze before making a judgement on whether it should be more or less.

For instance, in the context of food deserts, I would recommend teenagers eat more fast food if it is a eating-to-survive scenario and there were no other affordable options. On the flip side, if my opponent had said that studies show that 90% of teenagers eat fast food as a core meal every day then I might say that they should probably eat less. It is all relative to the situation in question, and my opponent has failed to present any situation that I could analyze and then give an opinion on. My ultimate response would be another question: In what context are the teenagers eating the fast food? Without knowing such things I cannot accurately prescribe an opinion that would be valid since I have no foundation to work with.

In conclusion,

I have presented three arguments as to why teenagers should eat fast food. I have also shown the issue with the question posed by my opponent in round 1 and have responded to that question the best way possible given the lack of background information or context in which the question was asked. I have provided sources that will further validate my claims and have upheld my BOP whereas my opponent has shown or provided no reasoning as to why they are Con. I would also like to note that my opponent presented no arguments for me to rebut.

I wish to thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking topic and look forward to any and all challenges from my opponent in the future.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
What people don't realize is that food is the fuel for our bodies. By feeding it trash, it will not perform well in return. A healthy diet makes a healthy body.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
98583Blade-of-TruthTied
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: There was no argument from the opponent.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
98583Blade-of-TruthTied
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: No argument from Con
Vote Placed by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
98583Blade-of-TruthTied
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: One round debate with nothing more than an open ended question from Con. Something vs. nothing leaves an obvious winner.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
98583Blade-of-TruthTied
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: ....no argument from Con?