The Instigator
Off_the_Wall.Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Farooq
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

$tarbuck$. A big ripoff.

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: 1/24/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,462 times Debate No: 2164
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (17)

 

Off_the_Wall.Paul

Pro

Starbucks coffee tastes bad, and it's way overpriced. Sadly, Starbucks even lost to McDonalds coffee in a recent taste test. http://www.consumerreports.org...
I contend that Starbucks rips off people by the millions daily, all over the world.
Farooq

Con

You must understand that most countries in which Starbucks operates have economic systems called free markets, in which it is believed that people have the right to "vote", per se, with their dollars for what they believe are good prices for items. Taste is a personal thing, and I am sure that there are many people that prefer Starbucks to McDonalds. There is something about the comforting milieu, the human touch of service, and lack of options at other chains that make people enjoy their Starbucks so much. If Starbucks was ripping off so many people, than why do they have so many returning customers? (you didn't say much so I guess that's all)
Debate Round No. 1
Off_the_Wall.Paul

Pro

-"You must understand that most countries in which Starbucks operates have economic systems called free markets, in which it is believed that people have the right to "vote", per se, with their dollars for what they believe are good prices for items."

Pretty obvious of you to state that free markets allow for uninhibited costumer options. It is a shame that most of their options are the too many Starbucks that flood their neighborhoods. I have actually been inside Starbucks and have seen and heard people talk about being dissatisfied with having to go to Starbucks because of their lack of other coffee options. Half the time people do not even know the crazy names for the coffee that they come up with. Also, it is important to remember that most of the time people order a cup coffee to go, therefore in those cases the "milieu" doesn't really mean that much. Not everyone that drinks coffee wants to sit around and listen to bad folk music while they text message other people in the other Starbucks down the block for 3 hours. And about the "human touch" of service, not happening at Starbucks! Those cashiers are more concerned with rushing you through like cattle so they can get to the customer behind you. The cashiers at $tarbuck$ are trained to do this. It is about production, Starbucks doesn't care about people like us. All they care about is money. The following article highlights, (or lowlights) the greed, and to be frank the despicable global marketing tactics of which Starbacks has mastered. http://media.www.dailytrojan.com...
Or if that is not sad enough for you, read this next article released by ABC news about how the people in Ethiopia are getting raped of their resources without their due compensation. Exploitation is abhorrent. http://abcnews.go.com...
As I stated, your friendly people at Starbucks are ripping people off by the millions around the world daily. If only people would think of that as they sip their frothy latte.
Farooq

Con

Your first arguement in this segment of the debate seemed to revolve around the assertion that Starbucks does not indeed have much coffee selection, but than you contradict your own argument by saying the flavours and variety cannot even be named! I don't even have to negate that arugment- you have already acomplished that for me!

The human touch does however actually exist in normal Starbucks, at least so long a business isn't too hectic- and more certianly it is more amplified than in any facotry-style McDonalds or Tim Hortons. It is not perfect, but one of the best nonetheless. People are not paying for the coffee when they go to Staarbucks- that too cheap. They are paying for the creation of jobs that a provided by workers. Now for your next illogical arguement...

"Starbucks doesn't care about people like us. All they care about is money."
To a degree this is true, but than again maybe with the excpetion of some obscure mom-pop buisness on some Saskatchewan hick town, doesn't this apply to all businesses? The point of buisness is to make money, through what shoudl hopefully, as in starbucks' case, be customer satisfying goods and/or services.

"As I stated, your friendly people at Starbucks are ripping people off by the millions around the world daily. If only people would think of that as they sip their frothy latte."

Perhaps you may have had a bad epxericne with starbucks, but this hypothetical soul that is enjoying his frothy latte most certainly isn't. People enjoy having the conveince of neighbourhood caffeine stops, the quality of drink, and human touch of serivice. Otherwise there would not be so much incentive to invest in Starbucks' stocks. The rest of the world apparently doesn't agree with you.
Debate Round No. 2
Off_the_Wall.Paul

Pro

In your first rebuttal you have misconstrued my position. I never mentioned a thing about the Starbucks selection. I never mentioned a thing about flavors and variety, but you insist that I have. Read my argument again. The knock in my statement about names of the coffee came from the wacky names they come up with for the coffee. These names confuse the public when generally all people want is a regular cup coffee.

In this argument, you come off as being a very misinformed young man. The fact is stocks for the Starbucks enterprise fell through each quarter of the 2007 fiscal year. For evidence read this report and weep for Starbucks. http://www.bloomberg.com...
Starbucks is ripping people off, and as you admit they're a big business that does not care about the common folks dollar. For those who chose not to read the article here's an excerpt, "Starbucks raised prices by an average of 9 cents a cup in July, causing U.S. customers who face higher food, fuel and housing expenses to go to McDonald's Corp. and Dunkin' Donuts LLC for cheaper coffee. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is among the few retailers to benefit from shoppers seeking lower-cost alternatives after reducing its prices ahead of the holidays."

Things have actually turned to the bad recently so much so that in certain locations Starbucks has even begun to sell coffee for $1, albeit 8oz. cups. Still a ripoff but that's beside the point. Here is another reference for the misinformed, http://biz.yahoo.com...

Also, the friendly people at Starbucks don't seem to like their work so much, which pretty much eradicates the notion that Starbucks is the premier location for "human touch" service. Some of these first hand, horrifying experiences of these Starbucks employees will shock the naive type, such as Farooq. http://www.ihatestarbucks.com...

Starbucks is such a money mongering business that they had the audacity to deny rescue workers free water near ground zero in the hours and days after 9/11. Despicable! That is just as low as it gets when you think about it. That alone should be enough shut down their corrupt operation. http://www.snopes.com...
That small instance is the perfect microcosm for the bloated and greedy ways that company does business. On a friendly note Farooq, it does more positive for you, and the local economies to support local establishments such as the ones in the "Saskatchewan hick town". I worry when I see the next generation of people such as yourself, who do not appreciate the traditional sides of good business. The new generation tends to not see the whole picture due to ignorance. Defending a company like Starbucks in any way, shape or form for any reason is the perfect example. Hopefully this debate may help shine light on the truth about Starbucks.
Farooq

Con

Starbucks is a business like any other, that seeks to certainly gain profit from the citizenries of the countries they operate in. True, they are committed to making a profit, but this is the purpose of all business and does not signify "ripping off". They provide convenience, selection and a pleasant atmosphere that causes many customers to return happily, despite higher prices that some other generic brands. Generally restaurants will always cost more than making directly, specifically when the Starbucks chains have to fund services as well in the form of cheerful employees.

Yes it is true the a few New York offices didn't divert material to the 9/11 rescue workers, but this is a moot point because such practices would largely be local decisions made by managers in the area. I myself have experienced first hand the generosity that some locations offer, for when one of my volunteer organizations choreographed a excursion to talk and comfort Vancouver's homeless on East Hastings it was Starbucks along with one other franchise (Tim's) that agreed to help us in our endeavours, despite the numerous businesses we asked of aid, even though they did not even receive any advertising opportunity and no public relations bonuses were received (and why would a local manager care of such things any ways). As Mahatma Gandhi once said "A few drops of dirty water does not mean the ocean is dirty". Surely Starbucks could be substituted for humanity in this argument?

As to your assertion that Starbucks is projecting losing money yes this is true, but largely due looming recession, which will hurt them far less than mainstream businesses because they primarily cater to the middle-class, which are able to afford the rather high-priced things. Perhaps you are of lesser fiscal status, which probably means you shouldn't be in business with them. That is fine, but you shouldn't criticise the finer tastes enjoyed by the wealthier.

Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bruindebater 9 years ago
bruindebater
Even if you believe that starbucks is over priced, what we need to see is that we live in a capitalist state, prices are ment to be competive and it's a free market. And, second, people choose to drink at starbucks even through they know the price. Last, maybe if all they do care about money, that's what a business is all about. That's how the competive market works.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
a lot of coffee does taste bad (and is strong). But they do have good products. but i think that smaller coffeehouses have much better taste. my favorite in my area is Citrus n Sage.
Posted by MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
The reason why people go to Starbucks more than McDonald's for coffee is because there's a Starbucks on nearly every single corner of every single community. In New York City alone, you cannot go one or two blocks without running into a Starbucks. Its really a marketing strategy that has been working for Starbukcs for a long time now.
Posted by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
I think that starbucks is meant to be strong, and it is. That is why people still buy, it those people that want a little "make your eyes open" in the morning. I do not drink coffee, so i will not accept this challenge.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by nebosleeper 8 years ago
nebosleeper
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 kenicks 8 years ago
kenicks
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 Gespenst 9 years ago
Gespenst
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 Vols21 9 years ago
Vols21
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 Donlatt 9 years ago
Donlatt
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 trayhayes 9 years ago
trayhayes
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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 Off_the_Wall.Paul 9 years ago
Off_the_Wall.Paul
Off_the_Wall.PaulFarooqTied
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