Ordering drinks with no ice at a fastfood drive-thru

IN COMMENTS RFD

The topic of this debate is "should" people order drinks with no ice. Con's arguments are 1) Makes wait time longer for other customers; 2) that warm soda isn't as pleasurable; and 3) that it has more calories ergo being unhealthy. Pros arguments are 1) that we should allow customization bc customers like that option; 2) that you get half of what you asked for; and 3) that it's filthy.

Con's arguments about the taste of it is his weakest argument. Then that the wait times will be longer is better bc that would keep customers away if it's significant enough, and lastly, his argument about obesity is absolutely his strongest argument. Pro says that customization will bring more customers but that can be negated by customers having to wait. So those two equal each other out. Then, getting half of what you ask for with ice "but tastes better" vs. getting more and tastes bad. Those two also negate each other imo. It comes down to the last arguments. That some machines are filthy... vs. it will have more calories and be unhealthy.

Con addresses that pro's source for people putting their hands on the ice are due to it being a dining room type setting. That fast food chains do not have this problem or do some minimally. I feel con is overall correct due to legal troubles for most places if someone gets sick off of a drink. Although it can be a little disgusting, it doesn't even compare to cons strongest argument of excess calories which equals adding to obesity. Obesity kills thousands upon thousands of Americans every year. Primarily due to America's fast food culture. Obesity is an epidemic in American culture. If this debate goes in pro's favor... sometimes you might get a few bacteria on your drink. vs. getting even unhealthier food that has the potential to cause health problems if not death. I do not believe pro addressed this very strong point. All pro did is give anecdotal evidence that he is not fat. That is contrary to all other evidence that the American diet is one of the biggest killers of Americans. So to say "people SHOULD order drinks without ice" is adding to this epidemic. In that, con wins arguments.

In regards to spelling, it's a tie. In regards to sources, it a tie since most of pros sources didn't address the "should" question and i didn't find them convincing other than that. And lastly conduct, i would also give to con. Calling con childish, desperate and saying he is lying and that us, the readers, should see this. I in fact would think the opposite. Never did con give insults to pro, so calling him the above was uncalled for and not deserved. I didn't notice pro lying nor did i notice him being childish or desperate. Conduct to con.

The three main points of Cons' argument were: inconvenience to other customers, the threat to consumer health, and the subjective taste. Pro addressed all three of these points in turn. 1. Any inconvenience is countered by the convenience of being able to customer ones orders (and the refusal to allow for no-drinks can actually threaten customer loyality); 2. The use of industrial ice machines itself poses a health risk; 3. Fast food places incorporate, as part of their brand, the ability to get orders customized to customer specifications (even if that specification is a shitty warm soda).

So starting with arguments.

The relevant arguments put forward are:

Con:
1.) slows down the line.
2.) It makes you fat
3.) It’s hot without ice

In my view, ,9$ didn’t provide any support for (1), con said that it would substantially slow down the people behind you: but failed to really quantify what that would be - even concluding it would only add a few seconds. This argument was not convincing.

(2) Con mostly contradicts himself - he claimed it only added a few sips, so the idea its an appreciable boost in calories so as to make you fat. Con can’t have it both ways.

(3) con argues that drinks are warm without ice, that’s the only genuine argument I found that con really put forward - but he didn’t support it with source, or any specific claim. How warm? How much below room temperature? 10 degrees c? 20? There is a big difference. It takes 20 minutes to drink Soda? According to who? I’ve never taken that long - my food would be cold by then too if I did. Because of this lack of information cons argument here is thoroughly unconvincing.

Pro made a lot of arguments that con successfully argued (in my view), should not be considered as they are irrelevant to the contention. What he argued was:

(1) You get much more drink.

Pro cited a source here that basically pointed out that you get far less drink if you order ice - I feel this argument was pretty convincing due the source, and as per cins own admission of 50-75% ice.

(2) and it’s not as gross because of the bacteria

Com claimed that (2) was ice machines only, rather than in fast food outlets - this was untrue. And as such this was a really convincing point made by pro that was left unchallenged.

Con goes on to reinforce that it would drive drinks prices up. He offers no real convincing argument or justification for this, despite one of his main claims is that it only gives you a few more sips, and takes a few more seconds. This sort of self contradiction massively games pros position, effectively shooting him self in the foot.

While I didn’t consider most of pros points directly (as con convinced me that they were not directly relevant) - one thing in pros argument really stuck for me, pro argues that fast food companies should cater to customers special demands - or it will drive customers away. This is valid - and issues such as the time taken to serve drinks with no ice - and the temperature are forms of actions the fast food company could take, and so this helped a bit - with pros emphasis on the company facilitating special orders eroding cons argument that special orders not being facilitated causes problems.

That being said, this was the icing on the cake. The only arguments presented:

Do I want a cold drink? Or more warm (of an unspecified temperature for a time that con didn’t support) drink that has a lower bacteria count than toilet water. For me - it’s obviously the latter.

Arguments: pro

Sources. The lack of sources caused cons arguments about calories and temperature to lose weight In my assessment. Pros source on bacteria was fundamental in presenting his case - so source to pro. If con had presented actual data here, this could have been flipped.

Conduct: cons insulting language, repeated use of the word “fat ass”, “retard”, and specifically the comment about sterilization do not belong in debates - even though they were not specifically aimed at anyone: and are far more substantial an infraction than anything con said. Conduct to pro.

Spelling and grammar: cons spelling and grammar errors were frequent and noticeable: “cupe” for cup “a few second delay” instead of a few seconds; “this loss of customers mean less” Instead of “this loss of custom means”, “This means  when you order a drink with no ice, you rudely force the people behind you to wait longer for food, and potentially cause a longer line to form driving disloyal customers to the fastfood chain next door” needed extra commas. “looking to shove as much excess calories”, should be as many,

That’s just one of the first paragraphs.

I felt cons language and grammar was troublesome throughout in this same way which substantially effected the readability throughout. S&G to pro too

Spelling and Grammar: Tie.

Conduct: Con

Pro repeatedly called Con "desperate," claiming that he "lies" and claiming that Con somehow even insulted me, the reader: "My opponent repeatedly lied and insulted you."
This however, wasn't apparent to me while reading this debate and I felt threatened by Pro's angry tone to have me as the reader accept how much of a liar Con supposedly is.
Pro also referred to Con's arguments as "childish."
Since Pro's approach was so aggressive and abrasive, continuously insulting Con and telling me how to feel about Con's performance, and this misbehavior negatively impacted Pro's performance and tainted the quality of this debate, I must vote Con for conduct, because Con's conduct, while somewhat passionate and fiery, did not negatively impact the quality of the debate or Con's performance.

Convincing Arguments: Con

Con pointed out that by not getting ice, you slow down the orders that can get through, increasing wait times and eventually product cost because the loss of potential customers deterred by the long drive thru line will require the company to up the price of drinks.
Pro responds by saying "So my opponent himself is driving up the price of beverages.
Pro's response that Con, not long lines, is driving up drink prices is not very compelling and I don't know how this could even begin to be proven.

Con mentioned that warm, hot soda drinks taste like shit.
While it's not a great argument, it is never touched by Pro, and as Con pointed out, this resolution is a SHOULD resolution i.e. "should customers get ice?" so if it's the case that these warm drinks taste like shit, and Pro doesn't give me any reason to doubt that, that doesn't scream "one should get this."

Con also pointed out that less ice means more calories and this is unhealthy and Pro's only response is an argument from personal anecdote that Pro himself drinks these beverages and is not overweight, but this did not address whether or not these high calorie ice-less drinks are unhealthy i.e. should someone buy them?

Pro argues that by not getting ice, you get your money's worth, but not ever battling the tasting like shit point or the higher calories point doesn't really make it worth my money, if anything it's like I'm spending my money to drink warm shit.

At this point, I felt like Pro had too much ground to gain back from inadequately responding to Con's points and failing to provide a compelling reason to purchase a high-caloric, hot shit drink, that will increase my wait time, my waist line, and my wait over time.

So args to Con.

Sources: Con

Pro provided several sources throughout the debate and none of them seemed to support his argument and it was unclear as to what the sources were even used for.
For example Pro provided a source about getting too much ice at a bar and at Border's Books, neither of which have drive-thrus, so it was really unclear as to why Pro provided this irrelevant source.

Then Pro decided to provide Burger King's advertising wikipedia page which as far as I can tell Pro tried to use to support ordering pickles and lettuce...I couldn't tell it was really unclear, but upon accessing the source I saw nothing about ice or drinks or drive-thrus.
Another irrelevant source.

Then Pro provided another source from Yelp that had several people mention that they don't eat fast food, they think it's disgusting, and fast food makes them sick, so I haven't the faintest idea why Pro would provide a source that didn't support his argument or the resolution.

The source that both Pro and Con provide in the debate said that an ad hominem is when you have "attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument."
The problem is that Pro tried to use this and say that Con calling people who eat fast food unhealthy was an ad hominem, but people who eat fast food are not Con's opponent and they have no argument to undermine.

Con however, accurately used the source in his round 3 and showed that the definition, sourced by both debaters, only mentions that "if you use the insult as a way to dismiss an argument it then now sometimes become ad hominem" which matches the source way better than Pro's statement.
By Con effectively using this source and turning Pro's own source against him and the lack of Pro's other sources in substantiating his case or the resolution, Con wins sources.

Therefore sources to Con.
I'll clarify anything if requested.