should restaurants be able to reject customers based on being overweight?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I had this dream yesterday where I argued the con side but couldn’t find any major flaws in the pro logic. So here I am to see if it stands up to scrutiny. I argue in favor of the restaurant setting an arbitrary standard for overweight to encourage people to be healthier.
- Patrons that act in a certain way that is rude or disrupting other guests
- Patrons that overfill the capacity of the restaurant can lead to safety hazards
- Patrons that enter the restaurant after the restaurant is closed and no longer serving food to customers
- Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to create rowdy behavior after hours
- For patrons lacking adequate hygiene or cleanliness, discrimination for this purpose is acceptable because it puts the health and safety of others in the restaurant or establishment at risk
- Patrons who bring their dog to your restaurant, which is a violation of local health ordinances. When this happens it is okay to tell the patron to leave because of their dog. One exception would be if the dog is a service dog and protected by the American Disabilities Act.
- Patrons looking to enter a private establishment that requires a certain dress code for etiquette purposes
well here's my theory right. I tasted the food and it was kind of salty, oily ish... not sure. Anyways, I theorize that the restaurant is just putting up a front and that the restaurant is actually just fast food in disguise. There's even been in the news where fast food restaurants actually encourage the person to lose weight because only healthy people would be able to eat food with a lot of fat without consequences (https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/when-fast-food-restaurants-encourage-obese-man-to-lose-weight-he-loses-140-pounds-in-15-weeks/).
Already then, both categories of restaurants are cutting their potential customers by more than half if they used the policy. But even ignoring this, both types of restaurants STILL wouldn’t exercise the statute. For unhealthy restaurants, their main demographic is unhealthy people whose desire to eat unhealthy foods outweighs their desire to lose weight… It is within their best interest that more people become unhealthy. "
- This is an isolated example that overlooks the broader, inevitable trend
- The only reason those restaurants refused service was due to the campaigning of the man's personal trainer, not of their own volition. It certainly wasn't under the rationale that they could feed him more if he didn't die
Also we don't know where this was in the dream -- overall only 39% of the world is overweight and 13% obese (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight#:~:text=Worldwide%20obesity%20has%20nearly%20tripled,%2C%20and%2013%25%20were%20obese.), so you wouldn't be losing too many customers picking a random place on the map.
- "only 39%"... PRO thinks 40% of the entire world is chump change? Note that this percentage is weighed down by the numerous third world nations. CON's point stands even stronger.
- Within PRO's source it's noted: "Worldwide obesity has nearly tripled since 1975."
I guess I don't have anything against point 3. I suppose the restaurant manager was less justified than I thought.
- PRO ultimately concedes the debate, as CON's 3rd contention renders the proposed statute irreparably immoral.
- PRO has still not engaged with CON's point that other courses of action are more effective. RECALL & EXTEND: "Instead of urging healthy restaurants to deny customers who are overweight, then, a better idea would be to target the unhealthy food industry itself. Passing laws requiring healthier foods to be served in fast food restaurants, for example, would be much more effective."
- PRO has conceded the debate.
- Vote CON.
- That is all.
Concession.
Ultimately a concession.
Pro missed the strong merit to his case, that regardless of if it's poor business sense, business owners by default have rights... Of course, by missing this, basic BoP was never met.
1) Pro's stance is a hard one to defend. People typically don't really care about people's wellbeing if it makes them money.
2) Con had more sources as well as sources that don't contradict their beginning statement. Also, at the end, con had a very nice link to "The Trashman - Surfin' Bird Lyrics."
3) Tie 4) Tie
shhhhh don't spoil anything!
First of all no restauraunt would do this. Enterprises take the position of profit over principle. Rejecting overweight people would be cutting out a portion of their profit margin. Second no sane person would think that the consequence of them being overweight is due to the restauraunt they are eating in ( being over weight is a consequence of a disease or a serve inability to control their hunger and taste buds). However lets skip my first point and go on with your reasoning. You said the reason the restauraunt refuses to serve overweight people is because they want to maintain a healthy image does not work because you can also say the resturant so good that individuals simply eat it for the pleasure of it( gaining weight) not because of their hunger which leads to promoting the restauraunts delciousness in their food; attracting more customers. Your logic is flawed because you are missing one fundemental element. The profit over principle attitude that enterprises stand for.
Ah, you rethought your banning. OK then
free win ig, unless Seldiora unbans himself, in which case I have an argument to make.
Make args a week and you got a debate