Instigator / Con

Ordering drinks with no ice at a fastfood drive-thru


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 5 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Pro

Anyone who is stupid enough to order drinks without ice in the drive-thru is welcome to debate me.


To be fair, A wise man once said:

“I'm sorry. But pro didn't cite anything so how could you even give him that point?”

- Virtuoso: literally today, a few hours ago.

As far as I can see, con didn’t cite anything, so his could you think the vote could even give him that point?


Wrong. If I disagree based on facts, then my disagreement is absolutely reason for it to be ascertained as being wrong.


Tej can certainly override me. The vote is sufficient whether or not you agree with it.


Please look in the debate at conduct and sourcing. Now also look at arguments he ignored. Now read the comments and seek motive to grudge vote. Do your job properly, that's all I can say without getting rude here.


He thoroughly explained both points. He examined the sources and weight why one was better than the other. He also explained the conduct point well enough to justify it.


Not sure if trolling or unintentionally ignorant.

How do you justify the sources and conduct points?


"my opponent conceded my facts were true."

Er... No?

The only thing I may have conceded was the point about ice supposedly being scooped from a bucket instead of dispensed from a machine. I've never personally witnessed this, but when I reviewed my own sources a second time I did find a brief mention of it.

However, the hang up there is that my source also said that ice scooped this way could be contaminated by the employee if their hand and/or the handle of the scoop came into contact with the ice. So it became a moot point anyway, since said ice could still be contaminated in spite of being inaccessible to customers.


>Reported Vote: MagicAintReal // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is more than sufficient

In the debate, you claimed that the study was only from “dining rooms”, you specifically stated “in thee kitchen ice usually comes in a kind of chest where customers can't get their grubby hands on it and contaminate it”, that was completely unsupported by the sources, and I could find no reference to all the ice machines being accessible to customers in either of the sources. Pro points out this wasn’t true. If pro couldn’t find it, I couldn’t find it (and I looked originally - and again twice now, just to make sure I really didn’t miss it), and you didn’t clarify what it said and where I said it: then I am forced to conclude the reference did not exist - and pros argument stands.

If Pro hadn’t called you on it not existing, I would have scored this differently - but he did, so as the source agreed with him at first glance, I treated your argument as completely insufficient. I believe I included this in my voting decision.

This issue is your fault as a debater. If the source said that, you could have quoted the specific part of the source, and pointed it out what you meant. You could have pointed out that the type of bacteria was different. You could have argued it was the UK and thus not applicable to All locations in general. But you didnt.

You put in a throw away claim about a study that was unquoted, unsourced, didn’t appear in the source as far as I could tell, that pro objected to, and you didn’t clarify.

Tell me, why should I give that argument ANY credibility at all compared to pros claim that was backed up by a news source that appeared to back up that claim on its face?

The germs argument was irrelevant to the resolution because the study was done on inside drinks which get ice differently, and my opponent conceded my facts were true.


Incidentally, this perfectly underscores why (and how) I vote on arguments and sources:

You said something that wasn’t backed up by clear facts - I treated it as a weak argument: as you made an argument alleging a fact without providing a strong justification of that fact. I literally score any argument in any debate I have seen in this way - regardless of whether I think the claim is good/bad/true/false. I doubt you’d want me to either: as if I start scoring what you argue based on whether I think it’s true, rather than what you argued: you’d rightly be able to claim bias.

The logical side is one part, but when you use sources well, it becomes a real time fact check on either side. If pro hadn’t used a source for the bacteria, it would have turned out to be a different story - as it would have been one bad set of arguments against another. Both sets of arguments became “is true” vs “might be true” as a result of this source; this is the main precondition for me awarding sources.

“Both debaters have an equal burden of proof because this is just asking which one is generally best, ordering with ice or without.”

The terms of debate, mentioned by you in the first line: is shared BOP asking which one is “best”, which is what I used to frame all arguments. Which is best.

Now, you said that this was “dining room ice”, pro argued that it wasnt, I checked the source and from the link he provided, and it agreed with him, not you, because the link he provided did not say that. (I think I mentioned this in my vote - and this is part of the reason source points were awarded too), if pro hadn’t said anything, I would have given your response more credit - but you didn’t. So in this respect, that was scored based on the source, the severity, your attack and his defense: I used that to conclude pro better argued that no ice isnbrst!- for that reason.

Thirdly, the spelling errors and frequent spelling errors in your debate arguments detracted from both readability and would have picked up in a basic spelling and grammar check. I think I have scored 4 out of all my votes where there was a genuine debate for spelling - and so it when someone is particularly lazy about spelling and grammar rather than the odd mistake, mistakes in language, or just a couple of odd phrases. We’re you the worst offender, no: but this was either the 3rd or 4th worst example of spelling/grammar in a debate.

Finally: when your argument relies on there being some undesirable delay, and you don’t specify what the delay is: only that there is a delay: I cannot consider that to be a strong argument. It’s not up to me to look up external data and facts to make your argument for you. I’m not going to take your word on your claim, and I’m not going to inject external data by trying to look it up or work it it for myself - that adds my own personal bias into the debate. I scored your argument as weak - giving you credit for it, rather than excluding it from my determination.

We had equal BOP here. So you think he proved most people should order drinks with no ice in the drive through?

"3.) Would you rather drink cold toilet water, or warm mineral water - that’s the core that lost you arguments (and to a great degree sources too). To any Normal human being, the choice would be the warm mineral water. That source from pro is not something I expected, and was basically the knock out source and knock out argument. You had to put a dent in it, by citing some other studies, or putting the risk in context: (Ie: well use it *can* be as full of bacteria in some respect as toilet water - but not the same bacteria, and it’s not like everyone is dying from fast food Ice."

He only proved dining room ice had bacteria. So none of that was necessary, so the argument you reference here should not have been weighted at all.

"You would have drawn grammar if you had run the debate through a grammar/spellchecker."

Don't be an idiot. Spelling of words is arbitrary and the same word can be spelled different based on geographic location, or accent and personal style etc. The English language is also constantly evolving so words change. You need to score fairly instead of focusing on a few minor and almost unnoticeable mistakes by one side while ignoring all the mistakes of the other side in some transparent way to manipulate the final results of the debate.

" quantify the extra wait in context. If you had found the average line length, and the average wait, and the average increase in pour time:"

These are impacts that should be counted and I said it was a few seconds extra wait for every car who did it. Not everything needs extra quantification. SO it should have been weighed atleast a little bit, while pro wasn't even focused on the resolution and should have no impacts. You scored the debate wrong. He needed to prove most people should order no ice. He failed

You would have won on the arguments if you had done the following:

1.) Not contradicted yourself between the “it makes you fat”, vs “it’s only a few more sips”. If you had provided a source about how many more calories, as a percentage, not ordering ice would have be, and quantified the specific health impact.

2.) quantify the extra wait in context. If you had found the average line length, and the average wait, and the average increase in pour time: you could have given a percentage time increase to an existing customer. It doesn’t even have to all be sourced - it could have been hypothetical. Instead, you mostly just said it would be longer

3.) Would you rather drink cold toilet water, or warm mineral water - that’s the core that lost you arguments (and to a great degree sources too). To any Normal human being, the choice would be the warm mineral water. That source from pro is not something I expected, and was basically the knock out source and knock out argument. You had to put a dent in it, by citing some other studies, or putting the risk in context: (Ie: well use it *can* be as full of bacteria in some respect as toilet water - but not the same bacteria, and it’s not like everyone is dying from fast food Ice.

You would have drawn (and possibly won) conduct if you didn’t drop all sorts of random (not aimed at the opponent), insults.

You would have won (or drawn) sources, if you had provided a source about the temperature of the drink AND a source concerning pour times and waiting times.

You would have drawn grammar if you had run the debate through a grammar/spellchecker.

I score everyone the same way, for the same reasons, to the same degree: if you don’t like my source, conduct or grammar vote application - that’s fine: but I am awarding them in the hope that it will make people improve the quality of their debates.


My philosophy on how to properly vote is just different than yours. It's fine, RM's narcissistic comments aside, is correct

I award spelling and grammar in cases where the spelling and grammar are terrible and effect readability.

I award sources when one side presents sources to validate their primary claims, or directly supports their argument. Posting a source relating to a definition we all agree on, or is not contested - no source points. If you make a surprising claim, a knockout claim - then make it next to impossible for your opponent to argue the key facts - that will.

I award conduct if someone is especially douchey.

I award arguments for the person making the better arguments.

If you have a specific issue with the reasoning or justification I’ve given: I’m happy to clairify. But it seems your just upset because you have a different interpretation of voting rules, rather than thinking I’m voting outside the voting rules: and for that I have no sympathy whatsoever.

Wylted, you cannot change the flaws of the voters, you can only change the way you work WITH the flaws.

Sure, this is an excuse to be like MagicAintReal and debate purely by noob-trapping. This is also an excuse to be like bsh1 and debate on extremely vague topics where your side simply is the one that has so much more data and research done in favour of it that you know, for a fact, your opponent can't stack it up against you in quantity and that the voter base, on average, are a safe-bet on voting based on quantity of 'won arguments' and not quality of decimating arguments of less quantity. This is how whiteflame erroneously voted me the loser of the environment vs resource extraction debate with bsh1. I am not saying I was always a great debater, fucking hell look at RM account early debates, I was a childish little shit (sorry young-RM I love you dearly, don't get me wrong but you were a little arrogant rascal, let's be real).

The issue here is that while the mentality I have can lead you to be a cowardly debater, it also is how you can be a brave-yet-efficient debater in spit of said courage. Just do you and flow with the voters. Study human psychology, study the local-site-sociology of voters and how vote mods do and don't mod votes. Use it, don't abuse it (even though you can when you know as much as I do). Just roll with the punches and say "this is the first debate of the rest of my debating life." every single time your record looks like shit or you take an L. That's the way, man... The only one there is.

Expertise is not used to win arguments but to show I am not full of shit about having certain knowledge on the subject matter. Not that source points should be awarded on philosophical debates. All points other than arguments should be awarded only in like 1% of circumstances.


Besides, it wasn't as if I completely discounted everything you said. When you provided the claim that cups are filled with 50% to 75% ice before the beverage is poured, I used that as part of my own argument that ordering without ice gives you more beverage (which was my main point all along).


It isn't so much that *I* need to believe in your expertise, but the audience (as the people who vote for the winner) must believe you. Merely saying that you should be believed because you say that you work in fast food (and I'm confident you are telling the truth) doesn't prove that you are right. As I pointed out, that is an appeal to authority fallacy. It would be no different if I tried to win a debate on a military topic by citing my military experience. While it may help to win over the audience to point out personal experience, expertise or training, this alone doesn't equal the ability to provide outside sources to validate claimed facts.

I just saw that, I thought you awarded it. I doubt it, I think if I switched sides but arguments remained the same than you would have placed a correct vote as opposed to what you did, but I can't prove it. You seem to also forget what this debate is about. He has to prove most customers should request no ice, I have to prove most should order with ice. I gave increased obesity and increased time and price as a reason most should get ice, he gave that "people should have it their way" and "the ice in the dining room is contaminated" as reasons most drive through customers should not get ice. So it was a poor interpretation of the resolution on your part, which there is no excuse for because I properly frame the debate in the final round.

I gave a fair and accurate vote on this debate. Ramshutu gave a shortened version of this same vote, to be frank and I didn't even give the S&G vote to Pro because I was fairer than Ramshutu, to you.

You know, I may not like you rational madman, but I do put fair and accurate votes on your debates. Please stop being a piece of shit. That is not how you are supposed to judge spelling and grammar, and arguments aren't even weighed properly. Also sources is just retarded. If pro doesn't believe me he can just ask me for verification, and he has just as much reason to believe my expertise, as he does to other random sources he uses. I can tell you that nobody lies about working in such an evil industry, it's like admitting to being on the marketing team of a cigarrette company. Nobody does it, who isn't actually on the marketing team because of how evil the job is.


Conduct: Pro.

Reason: Pro never has bad conduct the entire debate. Con says the following:

“taste like shit”
“hot shitty tasting soda.”
“you are just being a fat ass.“
^ On their own, these would be a slap on the wrist but no conduct vote on my scaling but if you combine this with the following phrases it compounds the degree of bad conduct in both tone and direct language used to be worse conduct than without these phrases…

“It's honestly retarded.”
“It's just like the idiots”
“some retard who needs to be sterilized.”
“Please Do not be a fat ass, who holds up the line and drives up the cost of delicious beverages by being an idiot...”

Con also intentionally misportrays what Pro has done and then sardonically self-insults to set up a means of insulting the performance of his opponent in relation to himself (there is no way this is accidental):

“Pro has not contested any of these things successfully or has dropped them completely. Despite my poor performance he has surprisingly performed worse thus far.“
“Him quoting articles by experts is not superior source material than an actual expert engaging in a debate with him.”

I am not sure if these are Con being delusional and speaking what he sees as truth or intentional lying but this is not at all how I perceive either case (the second is even more undeniably false and is a huge reason why Con lost the Sources vote).


S&G: Con has terrible usage of commas in general and doesn’t understand what punctuation is for, in general. This would be fine if he wasn’t so arrogant and cruel to his opponent in the last Round, parading his superior intellect and what-not. Fuck off with the attitude when you can’t use punctuation correctly. It doesn’t merit the vote being taken but honestly, Con uses commas and a lot of punctuation completely wrong. He sets up sentences very suboptimally so that he actually should be using a semicolon in the middle of many of his run-on sentences but on top of that he puts the commas not where the semicolon should be always but instead in two random places in the sentence surrounding the section in which the entire thing should be split up by a full-stop/period. Since I am tying the vote, I will not give examples. I am just triggered from Con’s general attitude in debates and especially in this one. I don’t care about humility, I care about how you treat others. You can think you're above everyone else without abusing everyone else and talking ‘down to’ them openly. It’s called lying and being superficially polite, Con needs to learn to keep his ego to himself and he’d perhaps fare well in debates conduct-wise. One thing I found hilarious is he does the opposite of a run-on sentence here:

“I am con on this issue. My opponent is pro.”
Also he uses a semicolon instead of a colon with bullet-points following it in R3. This is undeniable wrong colon-type usage but whatever, really I don’t give a shit about grammar. I give a shit about how one conducts themselves in the debating arena and this was shoddy sportsmanship all-round.


Sources and Arguments: Pro wins. Con never once, all debate, uses a source to illustrate a point. The only time he appears to use a source is actually an illusion. He is copy and pasting a hyperlinked text from Pro. Con literally used 0 sources to illustrate his point. Pro’s quoted hyperlink was about Ad Hominem attacks, it was nothing to do with the debate so even that isn’t an indirectly relevant link via Con’s quoting.

The Sourcing is literally the primary (if not sole) reason that Con loses arguments as well. Whenever Con says something, rude or not, it is emphasised strongly by… Con’s anecdotal experience as a deputy manager in a fast food joint or whatever he is. I don’t, at all, mean to demean Con’s job here, this is not a vegan rant or ‘ha you work fast-food loser’ taunt, this is about his sourcing being literally his own experience. We have two issues:
1) he can lie
2) he can be wrong (or only half-right) due to little experience and thus ignorance.

These issues are present in ALL points he raises. This means that even if what he is saying is valid, and disproves Pro if true due to well-formed argumentation and logic, we have to favour Pro in every single clash due to Pro backing himself up and thus being more reliable a bet on who is speaking truth.

Now, let’s look specifically at where this erroneous lack of sourcing is directly why he loses Arguments vote as well.

Because in his store, or what he’s been told about stores, there is apparently an automated system that has no function to press a button that automates non-ice-delivery, an argument is put forth by Con that the time-wastage is reason to not order drinks with no-ice at a drive-thru. The reason is ultimately rooted in the desire of the corporation and employees that don’t want cars to get bored and drive away as the car is more interested in a far ‘grab and go’ than being at the particular chain/brand of fast food establishment, on average.


To counter this, Pro states that this is firstly a point in favour of ordering drinks with no ice being allowed and frowned upon less as it is an example of customer choice and pleasure. Then, to counter this angle, Con retorts that the debate is not about the freedom to order with no ice but that people should not do so. Yet, the entire reason they ‘should not’ do so is that apparently it is too annoying to the corporation and other customers… Who says you should care about that as a customer? Nowhere, in the entire debate is this highlighted apart from that Con says the corporation will then increase the price of drinks to make it worth catering to the lesser customers. Isn’t that a good thing for the corporation then? Maybe after making enough profit they can afford a machine that has an option to toggle between automated ice and non-ice delivery. I don’t get what the point Con was making here is. I also didn’t understand why Pro didn’t attack him along the lines of ‘the corporation should charge more for non-ice order than ice, that seems the optimal outcome’ but since Pro didn’t do that I simply render the point negated and 0-0 as opposed to in Pro’s favour.


Con’s second point is that the quantity of soda you get extra by not having that space filled with ice is not worth it because the amount of extra liquid you sip and swallow is negligible in comparison to the dissatisfaction you’ll receive from the temperature and texture of the warmer drink on your tongue. This is, again, anecdotal and the problem with this being anecdotal isn’t just ‘Con could be lying or wrong’ but rather that this is purely subjective. Why is room temperature so bad in winter, for instance? Isn’t Con liquidating the entire notion of ordering ice to be optimal in some conditions and only suboptimal when the person would have blatant motive to order ice anyway as it would be so hot outside? This debate wasn’t necessarily based in a hot season of any particular location, it was a debate about ordering ice in itself across all conditions. Perhaps Con meant in the average weather conditions of the State of the US where he is deputy manager of that particular chain… Either way, I’m very confused how this is a valid source to trust (himself on a subjective, context-specific conclusion).


Pro combats this by having a “The Atlantic” business-section article where it’s strongly hinted at that the ‘extra sips’ Con refers to are much larger in percentage of drink than Con made it out to be. On top of this, from the same source, Pro gives a more reputable third-party’s opinion on the matter where there is reverse-example of the corruption of corporations and how they use ice to mask how little drink you get when one particular customer at (admittedly a non fast-food chain) orders chai without ice and is told sternly by the one serving her that the reason for the cup only being approximately half-full is the lack of ice in her order. Pro leads on to say how Burger King (a well-known brand in the fast food chain market) has its publicly stated ethos as revolving around catering to the customer and how the customer wants to be served. I was sad to see Pro not bring up Subways’ slogan and ethos but I admit, Subway drive-thrus are less well known and rare as the company specialises in face-to-face fast food, which is the way they ensure to be above others in quality of service. It’s sneaky, but effective… Anyway, Pro wins this point-clash hands down due to sourcing and elaboration on said sourcing. 0-1


Con’s final point is both laughable and horrific depending how sarcastic or genuinely harsh Con is being. Con begins fairly alright taking an anti-Libertarian stance on health; in short, people should not feel entitled or correct in choosing the higher calorie option if it costs the same as one that gives less for the same amount of liquid while maintaining similar quality of taste of said product. I am actually being kind to Con here, he didn’t put the point across properly at all and basically summed it up by calling Pro and all that adhere to the resolution as fatasses. Following this, Con builds further up his authoritarian stance on food and beverage by saying that behind the scenes, experts have decided even the dumbest-appearing foods you are served at your fast-food chain so basically shut the fuck up and drink your soda how it’s given or you’re a ‘retard who needs to be sterilized’. This is, literally without exaggeration, the point Con was making… So how does Pro respond?


Pro responds by linking on from the Burger King official motto, to exploring the effect that said service-attitude has on customers and their online reviews. He sources a Yelp review that directly highlights what customers will do to your online-credibility as a less-well-reviewed fast-food establishment if you treat them in the way Con has suggested and then does something even better in Round 2; he combats fallacy with fallacy but my dear Fiora (my god), he does it well. What Con did was actually not Ad Hominem attack, it was something one-step-back from Ad Hominem. What Con did was bullying people to strengthen how strongly he believes in a point being made clear to the reader, but Ad Hominem is saying that said insult makes him more right (which Con never states or implies). What Pro did, in return to Con, is commit false-equivalence fallacy as well as fallacy-fallacy. False-equivalence speaks for itself but fallacy-fallacy is the idea that because the opponent committed a logical fallacy in how they went about proving their view that their view itself is actually the incorrect one. Regardless, Pro wins the point due to using real-life example on Yelp as well as masterfully combatting fallacy with fallacy. You see, Con DID ACTUALLY commit a fallacy, the fallacy is ‘genetic fallacy’ meaning that he argues that because the opinion of drinks being good with ice comes from experts who decided the corporation should default to ice-with-drinks, it therefore is inherently superior to the non-default option of drinks without ice… Genetic Fallacy is committed here because the sole thing Con justifies the correctness with is the authority in the industry or in society relative to said topic that the idea supporting one side came from (i.e. the genetics of that idea). 0-2

The debate here devolves into smear campaigning the other debater on both sides. Pro wins.


Thanks for the feedback!

Ramshutu'so vote was clearly intended to manipulate the end result of this debate. I don'the mind drafter's but I clearly think it's incorrect


Thank you for the feedback, Ramshutu.


I don't care what people say in the context of the debate. I'm glad you accepted

Well just a general reminder I'm here if anyone needs clarification on the vote.
I don't run from interaction because I'm on an internet debate website for said interaction.
Also, if there is something wrong with what I've done, I'm actually willing to remedy it if someone would just ask me about it.


Anyway, if you want to hit me up via a private message I would be happy to discuss this with you further... or not at all. Entirely up to you.

I'm not going to chase you halfway across the internet to give you the "option" of "talking" to me, because I'm not emotionally invested in an internet debate website.

If a member is afraid of you, that is actually negative-percent (below 0%) an excuse to harass them further.


Raltar blocked me because I asked him if he wanted to talk about his vote in the comments or in private messages and he blocked me.
That's it.
He placed a vote on me and ran way because he isn't adult enough to take on the push back...he blocks because he's afraid.


Wylted, I just want to let you know that I don't have any hard feelings against you. A debate is a debate and people say things with the explicit goal of winning. I treat what happens in a debate (or in a game of forum mafia, etc.) as separate from everything else.

From what I've seen of you, you seem like an interesting person and someone who has plenty of your own matters to concern yourself with aside from some petty debate on the internet. I accepted this debate originally because it seemed like an amusing topic to debate that was different from a lot of the repetitive stuff other people on this site tend to debate over and over again. The goal was not to be a dick and piss you off.

There are a few folks on this site with very petty grudges against me which they have formed for very silly reasons, after knowing me for barely more than a day. I tried talking to them and they made it pretty clear that my option was to change my opinions to agree with them or they would continue to come after me until I did. As such, I added them to my block list and I no longer waste my valuable time engaging them.

If you want to be pissed off at me over something said in a debate, alright, I can't stop you from feeling that way. But don't just blindly jump on the first "Anti-Raltar" bandwagon which comes along. Other people have told me good things about you, and I think you can choose to be better than this.


Did Con post a link in his 3rd round?
Am I allowed to analyze content within the debate?
Iron clad.


His source didn't prove anything at all. It would be like sourcing the definition of "and" and hyperlinking that word in the middle of a quote to make a point.


The vote is iron clad.


But the refute to Con's argument, that people who would be getting these high caloric drinks are unhealthy because of the high caloric drink they prefer to ingest, was that Con was committing an ad hominem, and because Con effectively negated that charge of ad hominem with Pro's own source on the matter Con batted down any impact Pro's argument attempted to have in refuting Con.

I wouldn't award source points to either side in this, but I understand the logic here.

Yes, the sources vote went to the user who used 0 relevant sources other than to explain what ad hominem is in a quote.


Do you have any contentions with the vote?
If not, I don;t see why I'm considered to be harassing.

Come, report me. Waste the mods' time.

Keep at it, see the outcome. I am 0% afraid of you.