Instigator / Con
Points: 19

Ordering drinks with no ice at a fastfood drive-thru

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
Raltar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
3,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 25
Description
Anyone who is stupid enough to order drinks without ice in the drive-thru is welcome to debate me.
Round 1
Published:
The resolution is "Ordering Drinks with no ice at a fastfood drive-thru"

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


1. In drive-thrus the drink stations for making drinks typically have buttons that once pressed automatically fill the cup, which usually assume the cupe is filled with anywhere between 50%-75% ice depending what the company prefers. When you ask for no ice, the drink making is no longer automatic and the drinks must be manually made by holding down a button, which prevents the employee from bagging the order or making the specialty drinks or floats while the drink machine is pouring. This may seem like it is just a few second delay, but customers are usually more loyal to the drive-thru itself than any particular fast food chain. 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. This loss of customers mean less profit and eventially the cost of drinks will rise even more, hurting your pocket book in the long run.

2. The drinks without ice are hot. They are slightly below room temperature and honestly taste like shit. With a few exceptions, most people ordering drink with no ice are getting at most 2 or 3 extra sips of soda, but it is hot shitty tasting soda. Even at slightly below room temperature coming out of the machine, it takes most people atleast 20 minutes to drink the soda, meaning that after about 5 minutes they're just drinking hot soda. It's honestly retarded. They the extra few sips of soda is not worth it.

3. The most common drinks ordered in the drive-thru are high calorie drinks. When you order them without ice, really you are just being a fat ass. We know the drink tastes like shit without ice, so now all you are doing is just looking to shove as much excess calories into your body as possible at this point. It's just like the idiots who want their sandwiches custom made. There are chefs that make well into the 6 figures in a test kitchen who have studied food and food combinations their whole life, before a fastfood joint rolls out a product, anyone who thinks they can improve on what those people create by saying something stupid like "Extra Pickles Please", is either a professional colleague who happens to disagree, or some retard who needs to be sterilized.


Conclusion- Please Do not be a fat ass, who holds up the line and drives up the cost of delicious beverages by being an idiot who asks for no ice. (Please disregard if you have teeth or gum sensitivity.
Published:
The claims made by my opponent (with no sources to support them) show that he is taking the position of the employee and/or owner of a fast food chain that feels inconvenienced by customers who make special orders, such as requesting a beverage without ice. However, this indirectly points to the exact reason why customers are and should be allowed to order beverages without ice; Customer preference and customer service!

First of all, as is well known, ordering a beverage without ice allows the customer to get more beverage;

When ordering a drink at a coffee shop or bar, there's nothing worse than getting too much ice. Businesses occasionally do this to fleece customers out of a full drink. Consequently, a generation of beverage connoisseurs have begun ordering drinks with an explicit request: no ice please.

And despite my opponent claiming that ordering without ice only gives you "a few sips" more, the reality is that the amount of ice served in many beverages occupies half the cup or more! Businesses actually know this and sometimes try to penalize customers who order without ice by serving only half a beverage, as in this example;

When she finally called me over to get my drink, I was handed... half a cup of lukewarm chai. I thought maybe she had forgotten to add milk or something, so I asked why it was so empty. She said, very simply, deadpanned even, "That's what you get when you ask for no ice." I asked why that is and her response was, "We usually fill it up all the way with ice."

Businesses that try to force customers to accept ice against their wishes or refuse to allow special orders like this are going to likely offend and drive away otherwise loyal customers. Allowing special orders such as 'no ice' will build brand loyalty, which was the goal of Burger King's longstanding slogan;

"Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce. Special orders don't upset us. All we ask is that you let us serve it your way!"

Ironically, my opponent actually uses special orders where customers attempt to change the pickles on their sandwich as an opportunity to attack "retards" who would choose to do this, but Yelp user 'Mary M.' has a rebuttal for that;

McDonald's was so pissy about "special orders" that I never bothered to eat there.  Sorry, no, I don't want a pickle on my hamburger, I think that's vile, I'll do without your nastyburger rather than eat it with a pickle on it.

So as we can see, customers will take their business elsewhere when stubborn fast-food employees try to push back against special orders such as requesting a beverage without ice.

On top of everything else, the ice machines at fast food restaurants are often filthy!

Over the past decade, several studies have been done that have warned people of ice and ice machine contamination, including a study done by The Mail on fast-food franchises that found ice from six out of 10 fast food restaurants has more bacteria than toilet water.

Suffice to say; "No ice please!"
Round 2
Published:
I just have a a few minutes to argue this but, we aren't debating whether places should allow special orders, but debating whether customers should order drinks with no ice. Ice machines being dirty was tested in dining rooms, in thee kitchen ice usually comes in a kind of chest where customers can't get their grubby hands on it and contaminate it. My points about excess calories and causing customers higher drink prices, as well as rudely holding up the line have been dropped and I do not extend them, my opponent had his chance to respond and failed to do so
Published:
My opponent makes a very brief argument with no sources, but accuses me of supposedly not responding to several of the more childish claims from his opening statements. However, the audience should be reminded that opening statements are for making initial arguments. My rebuttals actually begin here.

First, let's look at my opponent's behavior;

Anyone who is stupid enough...

...you are just being a fat ass.

...some retard who needs to be sterilized.

...an idiot who asks for no ice.
Most of my opponent's argument boils down to these sorts of simple and ad hominem insults. He accuses me of supposedly not responding to his points, and yet he himself has not responded to my point that treating his customers in this disgusting manner will drive them away. Alternatively, just showing his customers some basic respect by acknowledging that they have valid reasons for requesting a beverage without ice would be to his own advantage.

...customers higher drink prices...

My opponent claimed (with no source to support the claim) that drink prices would increase because customers who order a beverage with no ice are holding up the line. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this is true, I have already demonstrated that his own attitude toward his customers is driving them away. So my opponent himself is driving up the price of beverages. 

...in thee kitchen ice usually comes in a kind of chest where customers can't get their grubby hands on it...

The source I provided states that the reason for unclean ice machines was that employees fail to clean the machine regularly. My opponent's claim about the ice coming from a "chest" also contradicts his opening statement where he insisted a machine automatically fills the cups with a set percentage of ice. 

My points about excess calories...

My opponent broadly accuses everyone who orders a beverage without ice of being a "fat ass" with minimal evidence to support such an attack. In fact, I personally consume these types of beverages regularly and without ice, yet I am neither overweight nor unhealthy. My opponent's claim is baseless and unsubstantiated, in addition to being an ad hominem logical fallacy

[We are] debating whether customers should order drinks with no ice.
Which is exactly what I have done. I have demonstrated that the reason to order a beverage without ice is to avoid bacteria ridden ice machines and to get a larger quantity of beverage. This is in the interest of the customer ordering the beverage, but is also in the interest of the business since pushing back against special orders of this type will cause customers to take their business elsewhere. 
Round 3
Published:
Let's look at the resolution again. Here it is:

Ordering drinks with no ice at a fastfood drive-thru

I am con on this issue. My opponent is pro. It is not a debate on whether customers should be allowed special orders or to order drinks with no ice. They clearly should be allowed to order drinks with no ice. It is about "should" they order drinks with no ice. I have to prove most of the time they shouldn't, my opponent has to prove most of the time they should.

Reasons I gave that they should get ice; more empty calories making them fatter, drink tastes like shit hot, increases the customer's wait time behind them, ultimately increasing drink prices.

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.

The only point relative to the actual resolution of whether a customer should ask for no ice. is the fact he pointed out ice machines are disgusting. The studies he cites though test dining room ice machines where thousands of people put their filthy hands. I pointed out that in the drive trhough they use an ice bucket and in my store it is sanitized daily and so is the ice scoop that is used to gather ice. So drive through ice is way less filthy in general.


The source I provided states that the reason for unclean ice machines was that employees fail to clean the machine regularly. My opponent's claim about the ice coming from a "chest" also contradicts his opening statement where he insisted a machine automatically fills the cups with a set percentage of ice. 

 a machine fills it with a set amount of beverage and companies have policies on how much to scoop into it. I have explained this.

-------

I should win this debate when we look at what was argued relative to the resolution which is "should customers get ice". They answer is yes. Now to address a few points nagging me.

I personally consume these types of beverages regularly and without ice, yet I am neither overweight nor unhealthy. My opponent's claim is baseless and unsubstantiated, in addition to being an ad hominem logical fallacy

Not everyone who smokes has lung cancer, that doesn't make it healthy. We all know coke is unhealthy so your statement is silly. Also calling people a fat ass is not ad hominem, not all insults are. An ad hominem attack is if I were to say something like "You can't trust his opinion on how to eat healthy, because he is black" If you use the insult as a way to dismiss an argument it then now sometimes become ad hominem.

My opponent keeps bringing up sources, I assume it is because the debate awards source points. The category should be ignored because this is largely a philosophical debate, and besides that I'm an expert on the subject because I have been working at fastfood since 1999. Him quoting articles by experts is not superior source material than an actual expert engaging in a debate with him. It doesn't make me automatically right,but I am
Published:
The only point relative to the actual resolution [...] is the fact he pointed out ice machines are disgusting.
I'm sad to see that as we come to the end of this debate, my opponent has become so desperate that he has decided to begin merely lying to the audience in a final desperate attempt to stave off defeat.

My opponent lies to you now, claiming that I provided only one reason to order a drink without ice. In fact, he himself witnessed that I provided three;

  1. As admitted by my opponent, companies fill cups with "50% to 75%" ice before they even begin pouring your beverage, which results in you receiving less than half the beverage you paid for. Therefore, ordering without ice allows you to receive the full amount of beverage you paid for, rather than be fleeced out of a full drink by a greedy corporation.

  2. Ice machines (including those used in the drive thru) were found to have "more bacteria than toilet water!" Avoiding having such contaminated ice added to your beverage is an obvious reason to order without ice.

  3. My opponent claims that ordering a beverage without ice will inconvenience him so badly that it will slow down service at his restaurant, which in turn will drive customers away, and that he will retaliate by charging more for his beverages. However, I countered this claim by pointing out that his own hateful and insulting attitude toward his "fat ass" and "retard" customers whom he wants to "sterilize" is having the exact same effect. When businesses push back against special orders, customers take their business elsewhere, which by my opponent's logic will increase the price of beverages. So it is in the best interest of everyone, my opponent included, that he change his attitude toward customers who order beverages without ice.
My opponent lies and pretends that two of these reasons were never stated, when the reality is that he never thought of any rebuttal for them. In two of these cases, his own logic worked against him. He himself (in his "expert" opinion as a fast food employee) provided the admission that he fills cups more than half-way with ice before even starting to pour the beverage. He himself admitted that driving customers away will punish everyone by increasing prices. His own arguments worked against him while he failed to think of any rebuttal other than hurling more insults.


I have been working at fastfood since 1999.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy. He isn't right merely by being an expert if his argument is flawed.


The studies he cites though test dining room ice machines where thousands of people put their filthy hands.
Another lie. Not only were drive thru machines tested, but the source I provided in round 1 specifically blamed employees for the contamination;

...their hands could easily bump the ice while scooping with a glass or even the scoop’s handle could touch the ice after an employee handles it.


Bottom line; I provided legitimate reasons to support my viewpoint. My opponent repeatedly lied and insulted you.
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
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?
#69
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Wrong. If I disagree based on facts, then my disagreement is absolutely reason for it to be ascertained as being wrong.
#68
Added:
--> @RationalMadman, @Tejretics
Tej can certainly override me. The vote is sufficient whether or not you agree with it.
#67
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
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.
#66
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
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.
#65
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Not sure if trolling or unintentionally ignorant.
How do you justify the sources and conduct points?
#64
Added:
--> @Wylted, @Ramshutu
"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.
Contender
#63
Added:
--> @MagicAintReal
*******************************************************************
>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
************************************************************************
#62
Added:
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?
#61
Added:
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.
Instigator
#60
Added:
--> @Wylted
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.
#59
Added:
“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.
#58
Added:
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
Instigator
#57
Added:
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.
#56
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
My philosophy on how to properly vote is just different than yours. It's fine, RM's narcissistic comments aside, is correct
Instigator
#55
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
IN COMMENTS RFD
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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).
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.